Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1986–87

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1986–87 showing the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1987 and the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Torbay

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will arrange to meet the chairman of Torbay health authority to discuss health services in Torbay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I am hoping to visit Devon later this year, but details have not yet been finalised.

Mr. Steen: When my hon. Friend goes to Torbay, will she congratulate the chairman of Torbay health authority, which has one of the highest bed occupancies in the country? The average length of in-patient stay is one of the shortest, and the cost is among the lowest in Britain. Will my hon. Friend also explain to the chairman how he is supposed to manage to run the health authority when the increase in funding this year has been 6.8 per cent., whereas the national wage increase has already been agreed at 8.4 per cent.? The authority cannot make ends meet.

Mrs. Currie: I understand that Torbay has one of the highest growth rates in allocation of money in the region. I note my hon. Friend's comments and will bear them in mind. However, I would say that the authority is showing other health authorities how to make ends meet. Results are what matter. I note with interest, for example, that the waiting time for hip joint replacement operations is 22 weeks in Torbay and six weeks in Newton Abbot.

Mr. Marlow: On her way to Torbay, I wonder whether my hon. Friend will—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think not today.

North West Regional Health Authority

Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met the chairman of the North West regional health authority; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): My right hon. Friend last met Sir John Page during a visit to the regional health authority headquarters in Manchester on 30 October 1987. He was told of the progress being made in improving patient services within the region.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that, if that visit had taken place just before Christmas, they could have discussed—or indeed witnessed—engineers coming in to cut off the oxygen supply to the incubators for premature babies at St. Mary's hospital ., and that, if it had taken place last week, they could have discussed with nurses why they were forced to strike? Do not those conditions show that the National Health Service is in the throes of a terminal disease for which the Government are not offering a remedy?

Mr. Newton: I am even more aware that, had my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Manchester in the week before Christmas, he would have been able to point to the substantial additional funds that I had just made available to the North West regional health authority.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report from Sir John Page, which landed on our desks today, in which he points out the many savings being made in the region—particularly in purchasing policy — the vast increase in building of which my hon. Friend saw an example a few months ago, and the vast increase in patient care? That does not mean that we do not want more in Lancaster, we do. Nevertheless, it is doing very nicely.

Mr. Newton: I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing the report to which my hon. Friend referred, but I remember with pleasure my visit to her area to open some large new hospital facilities there.

Mr. Orme: When the meeting took place, was the crisis in the Salford area health authority discussed? Was there a discussion of the four wards that will have to close? Was it mentioned that the health authority must find £2 million per year into the 1990s, and that the money that has been allocated on a one-yearly basis is entirely unsatisfactory? What is the Minister going to do about the crisis in the inner cities—not least in Salford?

Mr. Newton: Among other things, we are seeking to improve the quality of primary care services in the inner cities, and that is an important part of the mix as a whole. With regard to my right hon. Friend's visit, of course the concerns that were expressed then were taken into account when we made substantial money available this year and an extra £700 million for the hospital and community health services, including those in the north-west, next year.

Preventive Medicine

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends to make health promotion and the prevention of ill health a central function of general medical practice.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): Our plans are set out in the recently published White Paper "Promoting Better Health". Major changes are to be made in the system of payment to doctors to encourage them to provide a range of health promotion and preventive activities; for example, the introduction of incentive payments for reaching target levels of population cover for vaccination, immunisation and cancer screening and new payments for arranging and providing regular health promotion sessions for patients. The family doctors' contract with the National Health Service will be amended to make health promotion and the prevention of disease a specific part of their terms of service.

Mr. Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but I am sure that people in Sheffield would appreciate more detail. Will he give more details?

Mr. Moore: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comment. The first negotiating meeting with the General Medical Services Committee will take place this week on 14 January. We will discuss details with the profession. We hope to provide incentives for doctors to reach targets, as I have said, and we will pay a fee to encourage doctors to provide an initial clinical assessment for patients registering for the first time with an NHS doctor. We will also introduce sessional fees for doctors who run health promotion clinics. In addition, we will seek to negotiate the payment of the basic practice allowances depending on a doctor carrying out health promotion and prevention of ill-health activities.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Minister's statement about screening, will he accept that restricting free eye-testing will hinder detection, as optometrists detect what ophthalmologists diagnose, and that it will cost the Health Service more in the long run to end the free eye test?

Mr. Moore: I do not accept that any of our evidence suggests that in the long run charges deter people from seeking treatment. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises what we are seeking to achieve in addition to the very substantial increases in moneys going into primary health care. That will enable us to increase resources, especially for inner city and rural areas.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As regular check-ups are so much a part of private medicine, may I assume from the words "health promotion" that my right hon. Friend is now extending that service to the National Health Service so that the "fit person" medical will become part and parcel of the health of this country?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to ensure that we are as concerned with the promotion of good health as with simply eradicating sickness. To that extent, my hon. Friend will watch with interest, as I will, our negotiations with the medical profession to see that contracts reflect that.

Mr. Grocott: Is it not a fact that among the many causes of ill health have been the increases in unemployment, increases in homelessness and the abolition of nutritional standards for school meals? Is it not absolute hypocrisy for the Government to say that they are concerned about preventive medicine when they have allowed all those things to grow under their jurisdiction? Is it not the simple truth that the Government are making the country sick?

Mr. Moore: Most rational people who try to approach the health of the nation with a sense of rationality and balance will understand the political hypocrisy behind that question. Happily, the reality is that, under most Governments since the second world war, our nation has over the past 40-plus years seen a pattern of health improvement. We are now trying to supplement that by adding to the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill-health.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Did my right hon. Friend carry out, before issuing his White Paper on primary health care, as accurate as possible an assessment of the extra loading that will fall on family practitioner committees if they are to have to process the immense number of item-of-service claims? What financial provision will be made to enable them to fulfil their function?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. Within the White Paper, which is aimed at promoting health, we are seeking to add to the responsibilities of the family practitioner committees. To that extent we are committed to giving, through negotiation, additional resources to those committees that will allow them to carry out increased duties.

NHS Patients (Private Care)

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards contracting out the care of National Health Service patients to the private health sector on a commercial basis.

Mrs. Currie: In 1986, private hospitals provided care for over 41,000 NHS cases. This demonstrates the value of partnership between the sectors, and we encourage such local arrangements.

Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister confirm that the contracts for the sale of hospital land to American companies based in Britain are going ahead? Will those contracts contain a clause about contracting-out services?

Mrs. Currie: I am in some difficulty as I am not sure to which particular contracts the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he tells me I shall give him more information on them.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that, with the exception of Belgium, Britain has the lowest contribution from the private health sector as a percentage of gross national product of any other country? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have words with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see what can be done to encourage the private sector to make a greater effort in the health services, thereby releasing funds for our National Health Service?

Mrs. Currie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the points that have been made. It is vital to harness all available resources for the provision of health care. Some hon. Members insist that health care must be entirely publicly funded. That is a dogmatic and narrow-minded approach to a most important problem.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall that in November her department released £250,000 to the west midlands on the express condition that it should be spent on private operations? Is she aware that, on inquiry, the west midlands authority discovered that private hospitals


were charging £400 more for a hysterectomy and £700 more for a hip replacement than was being charged in its own hospitals? In the meantime, Wolverhampton has suspended all hip operations for the financial year. As it is clear from that experience that the NHS gives better value for money, why does the Minister leave its operating theatres empty while filling the pockets of commercial medicine?

Mrs. Currie: I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's synthetic indignation. The west midlands experience shows that it is important, right from the start, properly to negotiate cost-effective terms with the private sector, or indeed with anybody else. Our view is that the only question that matters is whether it helps the patient, as we expect cost effectiveness in all services.

Income-related Benefits

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recognition the new system of income-related benefits will give to the needs of families on low incomes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): Lower-paid working families will receive more help through family credit, which we expect to be received by over twice the number presently receiving family income supplement, at an extra cost of around £200 million; and we shall be spending around £100 million extra on families in income support, which replaces supplementary benefit.

Mr. Bowden: I am reassured by my hon. Friend's reply and I applaud the principle that the greatest help should be given to those in greatest need. Can he give actual figures of the families who will be receiving family credit in future, and can he say how those who are in need and are entitled to claim will be informed and encouraged to claim that entitlement?

Mr. Portillo: The total number of families should be about 470,000 compared with 200.000 who are receiving FIS today. We will launch a promotional campaign, on which we are spending £3 million.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the £50 or £60 that a child has saved in a building society out of weekly pocket money be taken into account for the assessment of supplementary benefit for the parents?

Mr. Portillo: The new rules refer to the resources of adults and exclude them from income support at £6,000, as opposed to £3,000 at present.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that we will be spending more on low-income families as a result of our social security reviews than has been the case until recently, and more than we would be spending if benefits such as child benefit had been index related?

Mr. Portillo: Yes. Even allowing for the changes in housing benefit, the extra money going to families is of the order of £200 million. That is nearly double the amo0unt that would be required to uprate child benefits.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that, under proposed changes in legislation, an unemployed head of the household who decides to undertake full-time education to increase his employment opportunities will

lose out on benefits, including housing benefit, which will be counter-productive to any scheme to encourage people to undertake training?

Mr. Portillo: The provision for education is a separate matter from income support, which is there for those who are available for work. The two are different maintenance systems.

In-patients (Statistics)

Mr. Carttiss: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many in-patient cases were treated in East Anglia in 1986 and 1978.

Mr. Newton: There were 195,628 in-patient cases treated in 1978 and 253,124 cases in 1986. This is an increase of 29–4 per cent. over the period.

Mr. Carttiss: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the RHA and the districts, in particular the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district, on achieving that impressive improvement? Will he confirm that the same success could be recorded for out-patients and day case treatment?

Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. The increase in out-patients was just under one quarter and in day cases no less than one half. That is a striking achievement and I am happy to pay tribute to the RHA and my hon. Friend's district health authority.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is not the result in East Anglia even more commendable when one reflects that the figures on which its funding is based are some five years old, whereas Huntingdonshire and, to some extent, Cambridgeshire are the fastest growing areas in the country? If that rather ludicrous state of affairs is the case, are not some areas that are not so fast-growing doing very well indeed?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the increase that I announced just before Christmas for next year for the East Anglian regional health authority is among the highest in the country and reflects the rise in population. We are always anxious to ensure that our method for distributing money reflects such factors in as up-to-date a way as possible.

Thames Regional Health Authorities

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in expenditure on hospital and community health services in real terms, respectively, using the National Health Service pay and prices deflator, in the four Thames regional health authorities in total, between 1981–82 and the most recent year for which figures are available.

Mr. Moore: Between 1981–82 and 1986–87 gross revenue expenditure in the four Thames regions rose by 29–4 per cent. Compared with the rise in general inflation, this represents a real terms increase of 1–2 per cent. National Health Service pay and price inflation was comparatively high across this period. Compared with that measure Thames regions' expenditure dropped by some 2.8 per cent., although this was more than offset by increased efficiency. Taking this into account, the purchasing power of the Thames regions rose in real terms by 2 per cent., and, most important, the numbers of cases treated in all specialties rose between 1982 and 1986 by 8.7 per cent. in Greater London.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for those figures, but if we look at them carefully do they not confirm that the most crucial part of the answer is that, as we have suspected for a long time, over the last five years in the south-east of England and the Thames regions there has been a cut in real terms in expenditure in the Health Service? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Health Service is in such difficulties in the south-east, putting aside efficiency improvements and the rest, because the double effect of RAWP on inner London and south-east of England health districts means that they have suffered most from cuts? The consequences that we now see, in bed closures and the like, are the result of those figures, which have hit this part of Britain worse than any other.

Mr. Moore: First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said, there has been a real terms increase. He will want to look at the figures with care, and I explained them with care. Secondly, he will not want to deny what his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) did when he was involved in government, which was agreed by all parts of the House, when the RAWP process was introduced in 1977. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a London area constituency, so I am conscious of the Thames regions' position on RAWP. The reality for 10 years has been that, despite the increase to which I referred, and despite the happy increase in patient activity, London's population has fallen and its relative overprovision, as seen by the then Labour Government, has produced a pattern of acute bed reductions, which has continued ever since that period on roughly the same basis. But—this is the curcial point for hon. Members who represent London areas — in 1993, at the end of the strategic planning period, London will still have more beds per head of population than the national average.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister consider urging one of those Thames authorities, namely, South East Thames—in the interests of efficiency and of increasing its income, on which expenditure depends—urgently to start realising the income from the numerous empty properties throughout the region for which it has no further use?

Mr. Moore: I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. As she will know, in the new Health and Medicines Bill we are specifically encouraging the generation of income from health authorities' resources. I shall draw the attention of the region and the area to her remarks.

Mr. Leighton: Is it the Government's policy to starve the National Health Service of resources to bring about a crisis so that they can introduce new proposals for other methods of funding and thus undermine the principles of the NHS?

Mr. Moore: Such political partisan nonsense does the House and the country no service at all. The resources that have gone into the National Health Service over the past eight years have been immense. The essence of the question related to the nature of patients served.
It is interesting to note that between 1974 and 1979 in the area in question—the Thames region—the increase in acute patients and in-patients treated was 4 per cent., whereas since 1979 acute patient activity has increased by 15 per cent. That is the measure of real care about which we are concerned.

Mr. McCrindle: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks and, as he will recall, I have raised this matter with him in the past. However, is it not clear that if, as is alleged, 1,400 fewer beds are available in the Thames regions this year than were available last year, there is at least the implication of a threat of a reduction in patient care in constituencies in those areas? Does that not mean that we should at least speed up the review of RAWP, which, I remind my right hon. Friend, his predecessor promised in October 1986?

Mr. Moore: Like me, my hon. Friend represents a Thames region health authority area. However, he will know from the facts that I have given him that the long-term pattern of acute bed decline since the introduction of RAWP in 1977 has proceeded apace since then without a reduction in patient activity—indeed, quite the reverse. The RAWP review is very near completion and, like my hon. Friend, I look forward to the advice that will be given in it.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister claims that patients are in a happy position. If that is so, can he explain why Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency is now on red alert, which means that patients cannot get routine surgery? That is a scandal, and the state of red alert is likely to persist throughout the winter, which is certainly not a happy state of affairs for that hospital's patients.

Mr. Moore: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was in this House in the winter of 1978–79 and I shall never forget what happened in London hospitals during that winter. Having said that, I again remind the hon. Gentleman that no one denies the constant and growing needs in the Health Service. The question is how we can fulfil those needs and create good patient care.

Mr. Malins: Will my right hon. Friend consider the example of Mayday hospital in Croydon, which is in a Thames region? Whatever Opposition Members say, that hospital has had a magnificent record of treating patients over the years. It treated about 27,500 in-patients in 1986 and thousands more day patients. In short, every year more and more patients are treated in that hospital, which my right hon. Friend knows so well.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows Mayday hospital in his constituency very well. As a good constituency Member of Parliament, he is well aware of the reality of increased patient activity, which is what all of us in the House should be concerned about.

Day Nurseries

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assistance is given by his Department to local authorities for establishing day nurseries; and if he has any plans to increase it.

Mrs. Currie: The answers are none and no, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to make specific grants to local authorities to provide day nurseries. Day nurseries are provided by local authorities in the light of their own priorities and resources and their views on the needs of local children.

Mr. Allen: The Prime Minister has tried to make great public relations play of her concern about child abuse, but in my shire — Nottinghamshire — there are only about 550 day nursery places for an under-five population of


30,000 children. When will the Government start to put their money where the Prime Minister's mouth is and allow Nottinghamshire county council to give a day-care place to every child who needs it?

Mrs. Currie: I can confirm that the number of day nursery places provided by Nottinghamshire county council in 1986 was 555. In fact, it was Nottinghamshire county council that cut the number of places from 585 in 1984. However, the total number of day nursery places provided in that county council area has risen from 1,013 to 1,057 because the local authority is now relying far more heavily on private nursery places. If we bear in mind that Nottinghamshire county council has spent more on day nurseries in real terms and that their day nurseries are cheaper on average, that means that Nottinghamshire thinks that the private sector provides value for money in child care. I commend that attitude to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister recall that although the population of children under five between 1981 and 1985 increased by 141,000, only 500 extra places were made available? In view of the genuine concern about family poverty, which the hon. Lady should not dismiss, and the national debate reflecting people's concern about child welfare, is it not a matter of great urgency that local authorities—not just Nottinghamshire—are forced into making a choice between, for example, providing library facilities or day-care facilities? In view, also, of the great tragedies that have been discussed, especially in recent weeks, does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility, including a responsibility to improve vital resources?

Mrs. Currie: We have some old-fashioned views on that on this side of the House. We think that it is the parents' responsibility to care for their children. However, we recognise that day nurseries can help children in certain circumstances. Since the Government have been in power the total net spending by local authorities on all services has increased by 18 per cent. in real terms and has increased nearly twice as fast, by 35 per cent., on personal social services. If local authorities choose to spend that money, not on day nurseries but on peace committees and gay rights committees, that is their business.

Mr. Key: I should like to say how strongly I agree with my hon. Friend about the primary responsibility for young children being that of the parents. Therefore, may I ask my hon. Friend to continue to ensure that that kind of care facility is available only to those whose need is the greatest?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, I have a lot of sympathy with that view. It is worth putting the number of day nursery places into context. There are about 30,000 local authority day nursery places, nearly the same number in private and voluntary day nurseries, and about 250,000 children currently attend nursery classes in local authority schools. There are also child minders and play groups. Therefore, we are talking about a great deal of child care, most of which is provided by the parents themselves.

St. Paul's Eye Hospital

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of St. Paul's eye hospital, Liverpool.

Mr. Newton: As part of its strategic objectives for improving the pattern of acute hospital services in Liverpool, the Liverpool health authority has drawn up plans to transfer to the Royal Liverpool hospital-Liverpool Royal infirmary site, ophthalmic services at present provided by St. Paul's eye hospital.

Mr. Loyden: The population of Merseyside and, indeed, of the north-west region will regard the Minister's remarks this afternoon as an absolute disgrace in terms of patient care. The hospital has a national reputation and has served the region for many years. The Minister's remarks are indicative of the way in which the Government are treating the National Health Service. They give assurances about the service being safe in their hands, but the reality is that people are dying, hospitals and beds are closing and people are waiting for years for treatment. That is how the Government treat the Health Service that was built up by the Labour Government.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's original question was about St. Paul's eye hospital. That is an old building, built in 1912, with no scope for further development. It is in rather poor condition, and the health authority proposes to re-provide all the beds in more modern facilities.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Representing, as I do, a constituency within Merseyside RHA, and bearing in mind the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the original question, may I ask him whether it is correct that Liverpool has more hospital beds per head of the population than any other district in the Merseyside region?

Mr. Newton: That seems possible. In common with other regions, one of the difficulties that Merseyside faces is that of ensuring a proper distribution of its services. That is something that we have tried to help it with through the so-called bridging fund.

Mr. Skinner: If these buildings in Liverpool, such as St. Paul's eye hospital, have to be pulled down because they have been up for a long time, when will the Minister start on this place?

NHS Recruitment

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will propose measures to tackle recruitment problems in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moore: Since 1978, direct care staff in England have increased by 76,000. Nevertheless, the Health Service is not immune to the recruitment difficulties experienced by many large employers, particularly in London and the south-east, and faces the same declining pool of suitably qualified school leavers as they do. No single solution exists to this problem, but we have recently announced a range of initiatives designed to improve recruitment and retention, on accommodation, grading structure and training.

Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are new facilities at Wexham Park hospital in my constituency that are not fully used because of difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of suitably qualified nurses, and that the high cost of housing in east Berkshire is one of the principal reasons for those recruitment difficulties? Will he


consider moving away from national rates of pay to allow the payment of premium rates in areas of high housing costs to help overcome some of these recruiting difficulties?

Mr. Moore: I know of my hon. Friend's connection with Wexham Park hospital, and that a modest improvement in recruiting is taking place there. He will be pleased to know that, already, several Whitley council management sides are seeking to negotiate, with our support, pay and grading structures that will enable the NHS to use staff more flexibly and take account of factors such as skill shortages and the pay rates needed to recruit and train staff in local labour markets. I know that my hon. Friend and the staff will welcome that.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest barrier to recruitment in the National Health Service today is the low morale of its staff, and that that low morale is based on their belief that the Government are not committed to the Health Service? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to improve the morale of staff in the service?

Mr. Moore: Like the hon. Gentleman, who served the National Health Service well for many years, I gather—[Interruption.] I fully accept that he did. Like him, I recognise the problem of morale. However, I genuinely ask him and hon. Members on both sides of the House whether the morale of the service, which has existed for 40 years, and into which vast amounts of money have been placed, and continue to be placed, will be improved by the quality of debate that we have been having in the last few minutes. I doubt it.
I shall seek to do what I said I would do earlier—to encourage health authorities to improve recruitment by, for example, increasing male recruitment and by making greater efforts to attract and recruit mature entrants. Many of the things that health authorities are now doing, as well as the large resources that are being put into the NHS, will make people realise the Government's commitment to it.

Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle the two great problems that exist in the north-west Thames area in particular, as well as in the south-west Thames area, of a declining percentage of those leaving school choosing to go into the nursing profession and the fact that, at the same time, there are declining school rolls?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change in demography is one of the fundamental problems that we face. We are considering very carefully the UKCC project 2000 proposals, which is looking at ways of widening the entry gate for nurses as well as encouraging qualified staff to return to nursing. Obviously, at this time, it is important that we do all that we can to encourage that.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State express a view on whether the new subsistence payments will increase or reduce his recruitment problems? Is he aware, with the blood transfusion service, that that new arrangement will result in a cut of more than £10 a week for staff who are paid less than £100 a week? If that is so, is the right hon. Gentleman really surprised that the result of that arrangement has been to provoke outrage among those penalised? Will he reconsider this arrangement, which is patently unjust and is hitting hardest those who are lowest paid?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The changes in entitlement to day subsistence, over which there has been some industrial action, formed part of an agreement that was entered into freely by the staff side. Nevertheless, the management side has today made it clear that it is willing to discuss the issue further if the staff side so wish. I imagine that that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Therefore, I hope that the staff will accept that offer and, as the management has requested, take all possible action to prevent further industrial action in the meantime.

Mr. Sims: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a high proportion of qualified and trained nurses leave after a period of service to marry and raise a family. Is he satisfied that the NHS, in the same way as the private sector, offers re-employment conditions that are sufficiently flexible to attract nurses back after they have raised a family?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point—the key issue of trying to attract trained nurses who wish to come back into the NHS. My hon. Friend will know—as hon. Members on both sides should know—that 7,100 such nurses did come back to the NHS in 1986–87. Clearly, I am not satisfied that we have sufficient incentives and sufficient flexibility within the management structure to ensure that a larger number of that pool of trained nurses is attracted back into the Health Service.

Benefits (Disabled Claimants)

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further protection he proposes for disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Existing claimants will generally have transitional protection and thus no reduced entitlement next April. We are addressing the problem of a very small number of severely disabled people, capable of independent living, who claim after next April. We will be considering a long-term solution once we have the report of Sir Roy Griffiths on his overview of care in the community and the results of the OPCS survey on disability. In the meantime, I am considering how best to find an interim solution with the help of the voluntary sector.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that this prevarication on the part of the Government is causing tremendous anxiety among severely disabled people, who stand to lose £50 or even more come next April? That anxiety is manifest in a mass petition that those people are getting up to present to Parliament. How much longer are the severely disabled to be sacrificed on the altar of uncaring Thatcherism?

Mr. Scott: In the first place, no one is being sacrificed. We have until next April to produce this scheme and there is no prevarication. I am determined that a proper scheme will be produced and I believe that it is more important to get it right than to meet some artificial deadline.

Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to look at the length of time that elapses between claimants first putting in a claim and the result of that claim, perhaps after one or two appeals? At the moment the way in which the


system works militates against the severely disabled, and it would be in everyone's interest if someone got his finger out.

Mr. Scott: I am as anxious as anyone, and certainly as anxious as my hon. Friend, to make sure that the procedures are dealt with speedily and completed. I believe that it is more important that we should get the answer right than meet artificial deadlines.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that this problem has existed for months and that if he is to introduce an interim solution surely he should be in a position to do so by now? Therefore, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the interim solution will be in place and effective by 1 April?

Mr. Scott: It is certainly my clear intention that that should be so. If, by any chance, it were not in effect by 1 April, I would consider the matter carefully to ensure that any subsequent claims were back-dated to 1 April, but I intend to meet the needs of this small group of people in a flexible way by 1 April.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not realise that, since the problem was identified in 1985, a whole variety of solutions have been put forward and that every time they have fallen because of the Government's unwillingness to put in further resources? How do they square that with the claim that these so-called reforms will target help on those in greatest need, when the biggest single losers will be the most severely disabled?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady should give us credit for the extra resources going in next April to cope with the problems of the disabled as a whole. Over £60 million extra is going in to cope with the needs of the disabled. Give us credit for that. There is a small group of people who, because of the complexities of the existing system, will not be dealt with in the same way from April. I am determined to find a solution to that and I hope that I shall have the hon. Lady's support.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing strength of British industry not only reflects the success of her Government's economic policies but generates the resources that enable tax to be cut at the same time as spending on public services is being increased?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The Government's policies of sound finance and incentives for enterprise have led to seven years of successive growth and, now, falling unemployment. The prospects for the coming year, with the continuation of the same policies, are good.

Mr. Kinnock: When consultants in every area of medicine report that they are failing to meet urgent patient need, and when parents in so many cases are desperate

because of the delays in urgent treatment needed by their children, will the Prime Minister tell us whether she thinks that the crisis of underfunding in the National Health Service is now over?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, an extra £100 million was announced just before Christmas, which brings the extra spending this year up to about £870 million, and there will be further extra spending on the Health Service next year. The Health Service on the whole has had greatly expanding resources. Indeed, it has expanded by 30 per cent. over and above inflation during the lifetime of the Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Life or death operations are being postponed, staff levels are dangerously low in many areas, and beds and theatres are being closed. What is the matter with this woman—[Interruption.]—that she does not make the response that is necessary for the parents, children and patients of this country? Can the Prime Minister not see, or will she not see, that her figures are absolutely useless to parents who are distracted by worry at having to wait for urgent treatment for their children? I ask her now whether she will commit the resources necessary to clear the deficit this year to prevent a crisis next year. Does she not care that people have to wait in pain without hope and without help?

The Prime Minister: The Health Service is expanding with extra resources, over 30 per cent. over and above inflation. The medical staff is expanding in numbers. The number of patients treated is expanding. The number of treatments is expanding. Operations are taking place that would have been impossible in the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to problems in the west midlands. He will have seen that a special statement was put out this afternoon by the chairman of the area health authority. May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the resources provided in his constituency area have greatly increased during the lifetime of the Conservative Government.

Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the appalling revelation in the press that certain doctors have been taking bribes from Asian women in order to carry out tests to establish the sex of the child, and, if it is a girl, arranging an abortion? While this is undoubtedly illegal, does my right hon. Friend agree that revolting practices of this kind, which are close to abortion on demand, should be denounced?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Abortion Act does not permit abortions on the ground of the sex of the foetus alone. Any evidence provided to my right hon. Friend should go to the Secretary of State for Social Services. It will be examined and acted upon, because allegations of this kind are and must be taken very seriously indeed.

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Mahon: How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that, according to official statistics for 1986, this country, alone of all European countries, has seen an increase in infant deaths?

The Prime Minister: That is correct, up to the first year. There has been an enormous increase in the number of babies saved immediately at birth and during the first month after birth. We do not know the reason for that particular figure. It may well be that it is a statistical error. If the hon. Lady will look at the report of the Health Service, she will find a fantastic number of improvements in the Health Service that have taken place over this period.

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the signs are that in 1987 Britain was top of the growth league among major economies and that a recent poll showed that 97 per cent. of leading industrialists believe that the Government's policies will lead to continuing economic improvement? If we continue to grasp the excalibur of enterprise, can we not continue to be one of the most successful economies in the world, with all the attendant political influence that that gives to the country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that our policies have gained the confidence not only of domestic investors but of overseas investors, who are anxious to come to the country. The growth, and the way in which we have tackled our problems, have meant that we have had far more influence abroad since the Government has been in power. It will continue to increase because of the way in which we have tackled our problems at home.

Dr. Thomas: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in March last year she officially opened the Ysbyty Gwynedd, albeit the hospital had already been opened three years previously? Is she now aware that the authority is labouring under an accumulated underfunding of £2 million? What is she telling us, as Members of Parliament for that authority, to tell the people of Gwynedd, who are faced with substantially reduced services under the control of her Welsh Office?

The Prime Minister: I remember the visit very well. The hospital was working extremely well and both patients and medical staff were extremely happy with it. I do not recognise what the hon. Member is saying. Vastly increased resources for the Health Service have been provided for Wales, because under the policies of the Government we have had growth which has enabled us to have both tax cuts and increased resources for the Health Service.

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: I refer my right hon. Friend again to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which took effect on 1 January. In view of the disgraceful scenes in the House yesterday and the continuing inability of the Opposition Chief Whip to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Smith: In view of the—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot ask a question about the actions of the Opposition Chief Whip.

Mr. Smith: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she believes, in the light of what occurred yesterday afternoon, that the salaries payable under the order can possibly be justified?

The Prime Minister: The salaries under the order have passed through the House and no one has any power, short of there being another motion, to change them. I agree with the spirit behind my hon. Friend's question. As this is the mother of Parliaments, we in this House have a very heavy responsibility for the way in which we conduct our proceedings, and a heavy responsibility always to support Mr. Speaker in the excellent way that he carries out his task.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time in what remains of today to consider whether her Ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament in 1982 when they reported to the House that the inquiry by Sir George Terry in relation to the Kincora boys' home would be fair and impartial? In order to do so, will she ask to see the confidential Sussex police files concerning investigated allegations linking Anthony Blunt with several promiment figures in Northern Ireland, who escaped prosecution for their crimes because, had a prosecution been brought, it would have revealed the immunity granted to Anthony Blunt? Were her Ministers aware when they appointed Sir George Terry, who was chief constable of Sussex, that his officers had been involved in this cover-up?

The Prime Minister: Prosecution is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the prosecuting authorities. If the hon. Gentleman has any new evidence, he should present it to them.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: In the light of the many cases of alleged child abuse, will my right hon. Friend base her social policies firmly on the need to strengthen family life and to educate young people for parenthood, rather than give greater control of children to social workers and doctors? While retaining penalties for those who mistreat children, will my right hon. Friend recognise that the upbringing of children is a matter for parents?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of family life and the lessons that are learnt at home. He links his question to child abuse, but he will be the first to know that this presents very sensitive problems to social workers and other people who have to decide when to go into a home because they think that a child is being abused, neglected or ill-treated. It is not an easy question for anyone to answer, but it is supremely important and involves social workers, legislators and neighbours.

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to assure the House that she is concerned about the protection of public health standards, particularly in relation to the prevention of AIDS and cervical cancer. Will she therefore assure us that she will not allow the back-door privatisation of pathology laboratories in order to save money, and that she will make sure that the protection of standards is the most important, indeed the only, issue that she is prepared to consider?

The Prime Minister: The protection of standards applies equally to the public and private sectors. It is the protection of standards that is important, not whether things are carried out in the public or private sector. If they can be carried out with better value for money in the private sector, that releases more money for more health care.

Sir Antony Buck: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider material that she will have gathered from her highly successful tour of Africa? Is she aware that the vibes coming to those of us who recently visited Kenya suggest that it was an enormously valuable visit in assisting President Moi to deal with the difficult problems of containing racism and tribalism?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It was an extremely interesting and valuable visit. Kenya and this country have a very friendly

relationship. We give considerable aid to Kenya, something of the order of £50 million. One was able to see the excellent use to which that was put and the very good way in which that country is run.

Newport, West

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to pay a further visit to Newport, West.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep public anxiety felt by the people of Newport, West about the possibility of a new nuclear power station being added to the most crowded nuclear park in Europe, with eight nuclear reactors within a 25-mile radius of 241/4 million people? Is the Prime Minister aware of a statutory instrument which was introduced on the final sitting day before Christmas which will severely restrict the ability of the 8,000 protestors to present their case as fully and fairly as they could have done in the past? What action will the Prime Minister take to guarantee the right of protestors to present their case without obstacle or obstruction and with sufficient time?

The Prime Minister: I think that the rights of protestors at any planning inquiry in this country exceed those in almost any other country. They are considerable. Any difficulty or protest should be presented either to the inquiry or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Department of Trade and Industry

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about major changes in the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and its policies.
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young and I have been engaged in a major review of the main activities and organisation of DTI. Our decisions are set out in the White Paper entitled "DTI—the department for Enterprise" which will be laid before the House later today.
We conducted this review building on the new objectives for the DTI which we published on 13 October last year. In our opinion, considerable changes in the Government's support to industry will be required to face the challenges of 1992 and to succeed against ever increasing international competition.
In an economy with a GDP of some £400 billion, the main role of DTI, with its budget of £1 billion, must be, in conjunction with other Departments, to influence attitudes and to encourage open markets in order to promote enterprise and prosperity.
We will start by helping young people to learn about business and enterprise. We will work with employers with the aim of giving one teacher in 10 each year some personal experience of the world of business. We will further aim to ensure that every young person will have at least two weeks' work experience before leaving school as part of his or her preparation for employment.
We will help young people to become more knowledgeable about new technology. We shall increase our support for computer aided design and other advanced technologies in schools, further education and teacher training colleges.
We will work in partnership with commerce and industry to improve management education and development and spread awareness of best practices in new technologies. These are essential to the competitiveness of British industry and commerce.
We will help small and medium size firms to improve their performance in marketing, design, quality and advanced manufacturing methods. We are putting in hand forthwith a major new initiative to encourage firms with fewer than 500 employees to take expert consultancy advice in these key management functions. We will extend the programmes in April to cover business planning and financial and information systems. We will provide more than £50 million in the next financial year and some £250 million in total in the three years to 1991 to encourage firms to take advantage of this initiative.
In 1992 the single European market will be completed, ending most barriers to trade within the EC. The opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993 will make us physically a part of this much bigger market for all our goods and services. We will therefore make it a priority to help business prepare for, and benefit from, this great extension of the market within which we must compete.
The need to open up competitive markets is an essential strand in DTI's policies. Competition policy is the key element in that process.
As a result of the review which my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in the House in June 1986, we propose a fundamental

overhaul of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It has been proved increasingly ineffective in controlling damaging illegal cartels. The new legislation which we are considering would prohibit agreements 'with anticompetitive effects. It would be backed by stronger investigative powers and effective penalties. A detailed Green Paper on this will be issued shortly.
The review also covered mergers. The main but not exclusive consideration in mergers policy will continue to be the need to maintain competitive market conditions. We are proposing two principal changes to speed up the decisions on whether individual mergers can go ahead. The first would be a new formal, but voluntary, procedure for giving advance notice of prospective mergers. This would give automatic clearance for simple cases within four weeks. The second proposal would give more flexibility in dealing with possible competition problems. The Director General of Fair Trading would have the power to obtain legally binding undertakings from the parties to a merger over such issues as agreed divestment as an alternative to a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
We are particularly concerned to encourage enterprise in the less prosperous areas of the country and in the inner cities—[Interruption.]—and we are having great success in doing so. We shall therefore be increasing and strengthening DTI's regional office network and expanding its role. The new consultancy initiatives which I have just announced will offer higher levels of grant both in the assisted areas and in urban programme areas outside the assisted areas. Consultancy projects will receive support of two thirds of the cost in those areas compared with 50 per cent. in the rest of the country.
New incentives will be introduced from April this year to encourage the growth and development of small firms in development areas. Their growth will help the full revival of regional economies, which is the aim of our policy. Firms with fewer than 25 employees will be able to apply for investment grants of 15 per cent. towards the cost of fixed assets and innovation grants of 50 per cent. for product and process development. We shall be targeting our help on those firms at a critical stage of their development, those which may not yet have developed the key management skills needed to survive and compete. Our policies are designed to encourage self-generated business development in the regions, both in manufacturing and in services, so that there is a broader, lasting base for economic growth.
Regional selective assistance will remain available in the development and intermediate areas. Unlike regional development grant, regional selective assistance requires companies to show that they genuinely need public money in order to proceed, and that their projects are viable and will produce identifiable and significant benefits. Internationally mobile projects, for example, will therefore be able to benefit from regional selective assistance as before.
We have concluded that this approach to business development will do more to strengthen regional economies than an automatic subsidy to all capital investment. A Bill will therefore be introduced today to end the RDG scheme. No new applications for grant will be accepted after 31 March this year. The Bill will provide for transitional arrangements. These changes will apply in Scotland and Wales as well as in England, and I am speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friends the respective Secretaries of State for those territories. Regional policy


will remain based on the existing regional map. Let me make it clear that we are not proposing any reduction in the Government's total regional spending, but we believe that existing resources can be spent more effectively than hitherto.
Inner cities will be benefit from the higher level of grant for the consultancy initiatives. The Government will be publishing a review of their policies for the inner cities in due course and will be taking steps to encourage more private sector involvement in urban regeneration.
We have also reviewed our Department's policy on civil research and development. In future we shall concentrate our help on collaborative research projects and the transfer of technology which would otherwise not take place. The White Paper announces our support for new collaborative programmes in both information technology and superconductivity. Research and development which is at the stage of commercial exploitation should be the responsibility of the private sector. The general schemes of single-company support for innovation are therefore being ended today. We believe that our spending on research and development will he more effectively used in collaborative research bringing different companies and the academic world much closer together.
DTI will be a catalyst for enterprise, innovation and change. But enterprising attitudes will develop only in open markets. We will therefore continue our efforts to cut red tape so that business can concentrate on its primary task of creating the wealth on which society depends.
The proposed changes in policies which I have announced will result in an increase in spending by DTI over the provision that was planned last year. Our proposed expenditure on regional programmes in Great Britain represents an increase over earlier plans. We will also increase previously planned expenditure and support for collaborative research, technology transfer and small business innovation.
The White Paper also announces changes in the organisation of DTI which will enable it to be more effective in the delivery of its services. The enterprise initiative will be marketed clearly and strongly so that business is aware of the potential for action through self-help, and the expansion of our regional network will enable us to get closer to our customers where they live and work.
Furthermore, industry divisions in DTI, which up to now have been seen as sponsoring specific industries, will be replaced by market divisions which focus on the markets for a range of goods and services rather than specific supplier industries. Emphasis will be given in our work to issues which span all industry and commerce, especially in technology.
The changes which are announced in the White Paper are very comprehensive, and reflect the objectives which we set for DTI last year. Real change, to give Britain a lasting basis for prosperity, requires individuals to alter the way in which they manage their businesses and approach their work. The best way to accomplish this is to influence people's attitudes, to help them acquire the skills and information which they need to compete effectively and to give them the scope and opportunity in open markets to compete. The White Paper policies which I have outlined today represent this consistent and co-ordinated strategy for enterprise. DTI — the Department for enterprise—will now carry this enterprise strategy forward.

Mr. Tony Blair: This is obviously a statement of major importance for the regions and industry of our country, and we trust that there will be a full debate on it before too long. Our view is that it represents the culmination of a process that, stripped of its pretensions, ends today in the effective abandonment of the regional policy of successive Governments over 25 years. Whatever the rhetoric, the reality of these proposals will be devastating in its consequences for the unity of the country and the vitality of our industry.
Will the Minister agree with me that the whole credibility of his package hangs on his pledge to maintain funding? Will he admit that the principal part of regional aid is regional development grant, which is now to be cut, that from 1979 to 1986 a £300 million cut in regional grant occurred, that this year there is a projected further cut of £300 million and that now regional development grant is to be abandoned altogether? Is it surprising that we regard this pledge as an empty promise signifying nothing?
Does the Minister agree with the survey made by his own Department, that regional development grant has saved or created some 600,000 jobs over the past few years—40,000 in the past year alone? Now that regional development grant is to be abandoned, leaving only regional selective assistance, is he seriously telling us that he expects, if funding is to remain level, a fivefold increase in successful applications for regional selective assistance? How many capital projects will now have to be abandoned? How many small firms entitled to automatic help will now no longer get it? The main reason why regional development grant is important is that it provides certainty, stability and international capital — and our own capital demands that.
We welcome any proposal that assists small businesses and any new grants that help them, but why does help for small businesses have to come at the expense of help for large ones? Is not the truth of the matter, as any industrialist will tell us, that regions need small and large businesses to succeed?
The Minister talked about his new business consultancy centres. Will he tell us whether the funds for those centres will be on top of the existing programmes or will come out of that money? He talked of a one-stop shop. We in the north-east have been asking for a one-stop shop for years: it is called the northern development agency. Will we obtain that under his proposals?
The truth is that many of the proposals will cover a wide range of matters, and will require careful scrutiny. Let me pick the Minister up on one in particular--the Government's competition policy. I welcome the implicit recognition that competition policy under the present Government has been a lamentable failure. If the Minister wishes to examine the ways in which he can open up competition policy, he might start with his own privatised industries, British Airways and British Petroleum.
I also ask the Minister — [Interruption.] — With respect, this was a detailed statement, and we are entitled to make a detailed reply.
What is surprising about this document is what it omits, as well as what it puts in. Where is there any recognition from the "Department of enterprise" that we have one of the largest balance of trade deficits in manufacturing industry? Where is the acknowledgment that we are falling behind in science and technology? Why is the only


proposal on research and development to chop one part of it? Where are the bold new initiatives, the new seizing of opportunities?
Ultimately, the proposals are nothing but philosophy without cash. Why cannot the Minister understand that what industry wants is not the absence of Government, but their presence in partnership; not a retreat into the attitudes of the 19th century, but a willingness to meet the challenges of the 21st?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and every other member of the Government, including myself, are not going to abandon regional policy. We are, however, changing it drastically, because we think that we can make it more effective. The hon. Gentleman had plainly prepared the section of his questions dealing with regional policy before he listened to the statement, and did not follow the statement when I made it.
Certainly regional development grants will be cut. We prefer to concentrate on regional selective assistance, new investment grants for small companies in the development areas and preferential rates of grants for new consultancy services, which will strengthen the quality of businesses in the regions — particularly small and medium size businesses — to ensure that they are genuine, lasting, successful businesses and not just branch-line enterprises.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, in the past, we have made claims for the regional development grant, which was a very useful instrument of regional policy. However, we are now changing the nature of the grant because of the change in economic circumstances. Most notably, a huge increase in investment is going ahead in the regions, and unemployment is now falling faster there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The time has therefore come for a system that gives a grant to any applicant for any capital investment, regardless of whether that grant is needed to make a project go ahead, and regardless of any tests of the viability or commercial desirability of what is proposed.
We shall be able to make use of selective assistance to assist projects which would not go ahead without Government aid, and which are of demonstrated commerical value to the region, as well as introducing the new grants for smaller firms and the new advisory services on preferential terms in the assisted areas.
The Labour party's commitment to the regions is obviously based on being wedded to the traditional policies, come what may. Labour Members do not acknowledge that the Government are making more sensible use of an increased sum over the next three years, compared with published plans, in the light of the improved economic climate.
I am delighted by what I took to be a welcome for the enterprise initiative—the new advisory services for small business. At this late stage, I will not invite the hon. Gentleman to join me and my colleagues on the platform as we launch the enterprise initiative across the country. However, as he supports improved services for small businesses and the strength of small business, I am sure

that he will continue to give support to and approval for what we do as we develop and promote the new project that we are proposing for customers in business.
I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's comments on total spending. If he examines the White Paper to be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will find that, compared with what was planned in previous years, DTI spending is increased for the next few years concentrating on research and development and regional policy of the kind that I have described.
I am sure that those who examine competition policy in more depth than the hon. Gentleman will find that our proposal is an improvement on the present position. They will rebut the hon. Gentleman's general economic points. He referred to industrial policy in an industrial economy that is now the most successful in western Europe. He referred to changes in policy that I believe will support the continued revival of the British economy, particularly in the regions, and the continued fall in unemployment.

Sir William Clark: My right hon. and learned Friend should ignore the Opposition's carping criticism because under no circumstances can anyone in his right mind say that the economy today is not in better shape than it was when we took it over, with production up and borrowing down.
My right hon. and learned Friend's statement will be welcomed warmly, particularly by business. The involvement of the education system with the business sector should have happened years ago. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we welcome the change that he has suggested in mergers and the competitiveness of British industry, which is increasing?
The Government have got it absolutely right. Unemployment will fall only if we have more small businesses. Unemployment will be reduced as a result of the emphasis on small business and through the grants that will be given to small business—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for stopping the hon. Gentleman, but many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. Hon. Members must ask questions and not make speeches.

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend and I agree that it is essential that we continue to improve the links between industry and schools. Pupils and parents want the closer links between business and industry to prepare young people for employment. A great deal is already being done, but we have set ourselves ambitious targets to improve the contact of teachers and pupils with industry. We require the co-operation of industry and the employers now to provide that contact.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the key nature of small and medium size business. The growth in employment in the economy has been spectacular over the past few years, and almost all of that growth has arisen in the small and medium size business sector. We must concentrate on strengthening it still further.

Mr. Tony Benn: I have only just had the opportunity to look through the statement. Will the Minister tell the House what references there are to the trade unions in the document?

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman need not feel disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr.


Blair), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, was present but did not listen to the statement. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman starts from the same point as his colleague.
There is no mention of the trade unions in the document, but all trade unionists who wish to see a strengthening of the economy and growing prospects for employment will, I believe, support our objectives.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the vast majority of his proposals will be welcomed as being imaginative and constructive? Will he also accept that, in spite of the fact that economic growth is proceeding in all the regions, the discrepancy in the levels of employment between the different regions means that an active and vigorous regional policy should remain a top priority of the Government?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that, although there is nothing sacrosanct about previous methods of assistance, there were real advantages in a system whereby a business man was aware that, if he satisfied a published criterion, he was entitled as of right to regional assistance instead of having to go cap in hand to civil servants or Ministers asking for discretion to be exercised?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend therefore agree that if the Government are to have the necessary support to show that this policy is an improvement in regional policy and not a cut, they will, above all, have to satisfy the country that when all the proposals have been implemented the amount of money being spent on regional policy in real terms is at least as much as it is today?

Mr. Clarke: I took pleasure a moment ago in the rapidly falling rate of unemployment in the regions of Britain. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the discrepancies are still excessive. As we change regional policy, we want to ensure that it continues to be effective, and to operate policies which reduce those discrepancies.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the regional development grant carried with it an element of certainty. However, that certainty came from the fact that, whenever investment took place at the right place on the map, after the investment decision had been taken, it was possible for any investor to get a public sector contribution, whether or not he needed it, to go ahead with that investment. The time has come, when the economy is doing so well and when so much investment has been spontaneously generated, for us to look at ways of using that money more effectively in the regions, and it is important that we do that.
Particularly valuable are those parts of the policy that concentrate on strengthening the quality of management and business performance in the regions. The regions do not want second-class small and medium size businesses. They do not want an economy dominated by manufacturing at the expense of services. They want an economy as effective as that in the south, and of the same type as that in the south. Moving towards that, the support that we are giving to improving management, quality, design and financial control at preferential rates in the development areas will be of particular value. We must make sure that our policies support the continued improvement of the regions vis-a-vis the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that there will be considerable dismay in the regions of England, Scotland and Wales that the proposals represent an extension of the stranglehold of central Government on the administering of regional funds? Would it not be more appropriate if the regions were given more discretion and control to determine their own priorities?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that one of the problems facing Britain today is the imbalance between the south of England and the rest of the country in terms of control and ownership of enterprise and industry, and that there is nothing in the White Paper to reverse that process? Will he accept that, in spite of his assurances about small businesses, in reality it will he the biggest firms that will have the slickest presentation and will secure a greater share of the grants than is now the case? If he really wishes to help small businesses, will he assist them in their role as unpaid tax collectors and administrators for central Government, as many of them would welcome that?
The Minister's conversion on competition policy will be welcomed on these Benches, but it is regarded, after eight years, as rather late, in view of the Government's record in creating some of the biggest centralist cartels and monopolies in the world, such as British Telecom and British Gas, and his total failure to stand up to the takeover of British Caledonian by British Airways. Will he tell the House—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) gave a detailed response to the statement. I shall do the same. Will the Minister tell the House what is to happen to the regulation of competition provided by those companies in future? There is an urgent need for a parliamentary debate on that matter. There is a great deal in the White Paper and the Government should provide time to ensure that it is fully and properly discussed.
The Minister has not shown that he understands the needs of the regions, or of competition and enterprise.

Mr. Clarke: I certainly do not think that the White Paper represents any extension of centralised control. I share the reservations expressed by many hon. Members about over-centralised administration by government in London over the rest of the country. I have announced today—I referred to it twice in the statement—that we are greatly extending the regional network of the DTI and getting closer to our customers, who are the managers of business and commerce in the regions, and we will be shifting the balance of our work to the regions to deliver the new policies. Nothing that and my right hon. and noble Friend are proposing will intrude on the considerable amount of devolved power that is already exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency will be used as the agency for a large part of the policy north of the border.
With regard to large companies taking advantage of the proposals that we have announced, the hon. Gentleman will see that the emphasis is in completely the opposite direction. The new grants in the development areas are concentrated on the smallest firms with up to 25 employees. The new enterprise initiative is aimed at small and medium size businesses across Great Britain with up


to 500 employees. Therefore, we are looking in the direction of helping small and medium size businesses in particular.
The hon. Gentleman talked about businesses as tax collectors. Deregulation and the cutting of red tape is also an important part of our policy to help small companies.
On competition, I advise the hon. Gentleman to await our Green Paper on restrictive trade practices and to look in detail at our proposed reforms of competition policy. We are strengthening and modernising that area of policy, and our aim is to make open, competitive markets, which means guarding against monopoly and unfair cartels.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the Minister say that a Bill was to be introduced which will allow a debate on the matter. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to short rather than long and rambling questions.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the general thrust of moving away from automatic grants paid regardless of need or the viability of a scheme will be welcomed, but will he explain how the placing of an excessive load on applicants will be avoided, and, similarly, how he will avoid officials becoming unduly embroiled in taking commercial decisions on behalf of businesses?

Mr. Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for the abolition of automatic regional development grant. Having been in the Department of Trade and Industry, he will appreciate that if one is against automatic regional development grant, any type of grant that is retained will be selective and some process must be applied. I assure him that we appreciate the need to make sure that that process does not become bureaucratic, onerous for the applicant or gives too much arbitrary power to those administering it. We shall obviously be relying on the Industrial Development Advisory Board, which is composed of senior outside industrialists appointed to advise us on the commercial appraisal of projects, and many outside secondees with industrial and commercial experience who move in and out of the Department are helping us to appraise projects.
We shall be concentrating on the key test, not just rewriting the business plans of an applicant. We shall make sure that so-called additionality—the requirement for grant in order to enable a project to go ahead—will be the key point on which we concentrate. For the smaller firms, all that can be too onerous and that is why we have proposed a special scheme for the development areas. Grants for companies under the ceiling of 25 employees will be operated in a much more streamlined way with just a check to make sure that there is commercial viability. —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members on both sides of the House should not shout across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did so once before, and I did not like it.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is nowhere near as good as he makes out because it completely ignores the real terms cuts in regional aid since 1979. Does he

guarantee that large British companies seeking to locate and expand in Wales will not be worse off as a result of the statement? Is it not the case that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales fiercely resisted the proposal to abolish regional development grants? Is not today's statement a real body blow to the hopes of Wales to build on the ashes of unemployment and to make a new economy?

Mr. Clarke: In making the comparison with 1979, the hon. Gentleman is going back to the first stages of regional development grant when grant was paid automatically regardless of its effect in creating jobs. Sometimes grants were given to huge capital intensive investment which replaced employees in firms receiving the grant. That is why when we moved, I think three years ago, to the second stage of regional development grant, making grants subject to a cost per job limit and linking them to labour intensive parts of the economy, it was generally welcomed. That inevitably resulted in some worthwhile savings in public expenditure because the money previously expended was not going on the chosen objectives. It is certainly not true to say that there has been any competition between the territorial Departments. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales agreed with the policy and will derive benefit from it.
On regional development grant and regional selective assistance alone this year, the Department of Trade and Industry looks like spending £254 million compared with a planned spend in last year's White Paper of £225 million. By 1990–91 that will have gone up to £264 million, compared with the figure of £232 million based on the last White Paper. Therefore, there is an increase in expenditure on previous years' approved plans. However, it is not the level of expenditure in which I really take comfort, but the more intelligent and sophisticated use of the money which bears more relation to today's economic circumstances of growth, expansion and rising employment in the regions already.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we support his attempts to obtain better value for money from the existing regional programme, but will he recognise that overlying regional policy and far more damaging to the regions are the present tax regimes which have the effect, through their capital nature, of destroying family businesses, and, through the subsidies that flow to the pension funds and financial institutions, of draining far more money out of the regions than any other regional policy can ever replace? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can try to introduce some fiscal neutrality between the regions and the centre which could enable small businesses to grow in the provinces and remain locally based and controlled there?

Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in his place on the Front Bench. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will concede that the Government have made great advances in easing the burden of capital taxes on small businesses, and business start-ups in particular. We now have the lowest rate of corporate taxation in the EC, an important stimulus to business and to profitable business in particular. In


addition, I cannot help mentioning that the unified business rate will bring enormous advantages to the north of England in particular and will represent a massive shift of public resources from the south of England to the north when it takes full effect in 1990.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Since Ford's decision to locate in Dundee would not have been made without regional development grants, can the Minister assure us that the one-door approach used by the Scottish Development Agency, Dundee district council and Tayside regional council to attract industry to Dundee will not be affected by the changes that he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Clarke: I will refer the hon. Gentleman's point about Dundee to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that he is telling me that it will not be affected.
I agree that regional development grant has played a major part in getting us to where we are now, but I am now explaining the need for change to make better use of the sums of money about which we are talking. We have the support, for example, of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), which recently reported to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on enterprise development—the next stage in the evolution of regional policy. Section 3(5) on page 4 said:
Despite the division of opinion on direct intervention in investment decisions the balance of opinion favours some form of grant aid, albeit on a selective rather than automatic basis.
That is the position that we are now contemplating.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: While I applaud my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative in seeking to link Government sponsorship of research with market opportunities, may I ask him if he will extend that initiative and examine the opportunity that presents itself for the Government to examine their own position as a customer in the market place and to try to co-ordinate some of their public purchasing policies to achieve a stimulus of research in return? In that context, will he comment on his further views of the Alvey follow-on programme and the space programme?

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening comments on research and development. We need to examine how we can use Government money most effectively in those areas. By and large, we seek to improve the climate so that industry itself can put more of its resources into research and development. Industry is likely to do that when projects are nearing the market place. That is why we are concentrating on collaborative research bringing together universities, higher education institutions and industry at an earlier stage.
On public procurement policy, we certainly look at the impact that we have on British industry and we shall continue to follow those policies. Today's White Paper includes the announcement of some further help for the information technology industry, although not in the previous Alvey form. The time has come to move on from that very successful policy. If my hon. Friend studies the White Paper, he will find that we have chosen objectives that will further collaborative research, bringing together partners who cannot be expected to come together without

the stimulus of Government money. Other companies can proceed on their own on the basis of what they have already derived from the Alvey initiative.
Our present commitment to the space programme and the substantial expenditure that we incur on it will continue and we shall remain full members of the European Space Agency. So far, however, we have declined to take part in optional programmes in which British participation would have been minimal and whose scientific and commercial advantage to this country did not justify the expenditure proposed.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Minister aware that the abandonment of regional development grants will be disastrous for industry in Scotland and similar areas? Is he further aware that anyone who knows anything about regional policy will not believe for one moment that his proposals can possibly maintain existing expenditure on the regions, even at its considerably reduced level following Government cuts in recent years? Expenditure is bound to decrease and there is not a single figure in the White Paper to sustain the Minister's claim. This is bad news for Scotland and for every other region.

Mr. Clarke: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about regional policy, given that he has considerable standing and experience in these matters. With respect, he is concentrating on the ending of one form of grant and is failing to take on board the substantial new measures and the change in emphasis in our policies. The right hon. Gentleman's views are not shared by the Scottish Council! or the Scottish CBI, which supports our proposal. I can only repeat that the sums in this White Paper are substantially higher than those in the 1987 White Paper. The figures do not anticipate a fall in expenditure over the next three years—quite the reverse in the near term. The debate on that can be continued more sensibly when the White Paper is published shortly and the figures are available.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the move away from excessive paternalism and automatic grants is welcome and that his determination to achieve value for money spent in the regions will be popular? Very few people accept that we have had good value for money from all that we have spent on the regions over the years. My right hon. and learned Friend's determination to help small and medium size firms will be widely welcomed—particularly the toughening up of anti-competitive practices laws, which most people accept have been very weak. Such firms need a fair market in which to operate successfully and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, they will bring wealth and jobs to the regions.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about automatic grants, and plainly I agree with them. My hon. Friend is something of a specialist on small firms policy and I am grateful for his support of our moves to offer consultancy services to small firms to improve their performance in key areas of business such as design, marketing and financial control.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come to overhaul the law on restrictive trade practices, which is proving ineffective. No doubt in due course we shall hear my hon. Friend's contribution on the Green Paper which


will contain proposals as to how we might make the present rules more effective to give better protection to small firms suffering from unfair practices.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is it not clear that, without the regional policies pursued by every previous Government, unemployment in the regions would have been much higher than it is now? Is it not clear that all previous Governments have been presented with proposals for selective assistance but that for very practical reasons — some of them explained by Conservative Members—such proposals have been rejected? Is it not clear that the present proposals represent the abandonment of all previous Governments' regional policies, which will not help to solve the problem of unemployment in the regions in the long run? The proposals will have the opposite effect from that which the Government believe that they will have and the Government's policy will end in disaster for those in the regions.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes an extraordinarily broad-brush point in claiming that previous Governments have abandoned the principle of selective assistance altogether and always had automatic grants. Until now we have had both selective assistance and automatic grants and we now propose to end automatic grants and give greater emphasis to selective grants. Regional selective assistance has been with us for a long time; it is quite venerable. I am sure that if one examined the record of the previous Labour Government one would find that their regional selective assistance, combined with their selective assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act, amounted to a greater use of selectivity in grant giving than the present Government propose. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's broad argument cannot be sustained.

Sir Raymond Gower: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in Wales the cumulative effect of the changes could mean greater flexibility for the Secretary of State for Wales without the diminution of resources? Can he assure us that nothing in the proposed changes will handicap the Secretary of State or the Welsh Development Agency in assembling a package to attract companies from abroad?

Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend all those assurances quite straightforwardly. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, too, will give those assurances emphatically and will act upon them.

Mr. John D. Taylor: What are the implications of the proposals for changes in Government support for the regions for the operation of the European social fund and the European regional development fund? Under the proposals to change the assisted areas boundaries, will not some firms which qualify for fund support from Europe at present cease to qualify?

Mr. Clarke: I think that my statement made that clear, but the right hon. Gentleman may not have been able to hear me. We are not changing the boundaries of the assisted areas. One reason for that is that it is inevitably a protracted process involving consultation on either side of the border. Such a change also has to be cleared with the European Community because it has implications for European Community grants. When we embark on that process, it takes up to two and half years for the map to

be fully reviewed. Therefore, entitlement to European grants will not be affected by the announcement. A review is being undertaken in the European Community at the moment to examine the future of the social fund, which will settle matters, including the eligibility of areas, for the next period of the fund.

Sir Peter Blaker: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement contained many excellent proposals, but is he aware that it is regrettable that the Government have not set under way a review of the boundaries of assisted areas? For example, Blackpool and the Fylde, which lost its assisted area status and therefore its access to the European regional development fund in 1984, now has an unemployment rate exceeding the average for all the intermediate areas. Has not the time come to set such a review under way?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is a persistent advocate of the case for Blackpool regaining the assisted area status that it had until three years ago. For the reasons that I have just given, a full review of the boundaries is not a straightforward process by any means. It involves full consultation with all those with views about their status—whether in a development area as opposed to an intermediate area or an intermediate area as opposed to any other area. Such a process must also have the consent of the European Community.
For that reason, it was simply not feasible for us to embark on such a review comparatively soon after the last one, and certainly not since the last election, since my right hon. and noble Friend and I have been at the Department. We do not intend to embark on that, at least not until we see how the new policies settle down.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the Minister agree that some of the worst levels of unemployment are found not in the inner cities but in the traditional manufacturing towns and colliery villages in, for example, areas such as the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area which, according to the Government's own fiddled figures, already has 20 per cent. of its people out of work? The Minister has assured the House that there will not be a reduction in total Government spending on regional policy, but will he assure us that there will not be a cut in aid to any individual development area, such as Rotherham and Mexborough?

Mr. Clarke: In future, our aid will be concentrated on selective assistance to those firms that can demonstrate that they need the grant to go ahead in such an area, on the new grant for small firms in development areas and on the consultancy services and the business improvement initiatives that I have announced which, I hope, will raise the quality of business throughout the United Kingdom, and especially in the assisted areas, because there will be a higher level of grant for that consultancy in the assisted areas and in the urban programme areas also.
As I have said, our published plans for 1988 will show increased expenditure compared with what was planned in 1987. We intend to maintain the level of spend in the regions. As some of the measures that I have announced will depend very much on demand, on people coming forward with applications for selective assistance and on small firms responding to the opportunities that we are presenting in the business initiatives, it is not possible to guarantee the level of spend in any particular locality. Our


planned expenditure is what we are aiming at. That is why we will market our policies so heavily to those who we believe will benefit from them. —[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) will restrain some of his hon. Friends from denouncing the fact that we spend money on letting the businesses in his constituency know what we have on offer.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a sensible and imaginative package of changes to regional policy. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that under the revised system it will be possible for us to offer competitive financial packages to internationally mobile projects? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a major factor influencing such decisions is the quality of suppliers and, therefore, his moves to improve that will not only enhance the performance of our regions but improve their attractiveness to inward investment?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and agree that a key part of our policy is that Great Britain—Scotland, England and Wales—should be able to offer competitive packages of assistance to inward investors in the case of those genuinely mobile projects which, if we were unable to offer a package, might be tempted to France, Ireland or somewhere else. Therefore, we have made sure that that is retained in our package.
As my hon. Friend said, we do not attract investors to this country just by offering them good packages of grants. A growing level of inward investment comes to this country because of the general economic state of the country, the feeling that the quality of component suppliers and support industries is good and because industrial relations are better than they used to be. Our package will help to produce quality in small and medium size companies so that they will give the good quality components to Japanese, American and other businesses which will help to draw more of them here.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Given that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Walter Mitty of Scottish politics, seems to believe that he is in charge of regional policy in Scotland, would it not have been diplomatic for the Minister to have allowed his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to read even one sentence of the statement? Given that total regional spending in Scotland has fallen by more than half—from £525 million to £242 million—during the past 10 years, what credibility can we invest in assurances that the budget will not be squeezed further? Given that the Minister has selectively and disgracefully quoted the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), is he aware that that body has been among the most trenchant critics of the Government's dismantling of regional policy?

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Scottish National party, is going to criticise the division of responsibilities between English and Scottish Ministers, with respect I advise him to discover what those responsibilities are now. The Department of Trade and Industry is and always has been the lead Department for regional policies. On the other hand, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has considerable devolved powers which he exercises through

the Scottish Development Agency and other bodies. There is no doubt that details of regional policy remain our responsibility and this policy does not change that.
I have already given reassurances about the figures and suggest only that the hon. Gentleman raises the same point during the debate on the Autumn Statement and especially when he sees the White Paper on public spending which will confirm what I have said about spending in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Although I welcome the retention of the Plymouth travel-to-work area as an assisted area, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider allowing that intermediate area to be eligible for the business improvement services scheme in view of the impending significant loss of jobs in the Devonport dockyard? Will he elaborate on the criteria that can be described as being "identifiable and significant benefits" for eligibility for the regional selective assistance grant in the future?

Mr. Clarke: The existing business improvement service is a European Community-inspired arrangement which is largely aimed at former steel, shipbuilding and other areas. It was a great success and was heavily over-subscribed in some places. We have drawn extensively on our experience of that in producing the domestic programmes that we have announced today. Large parts of the business and enterprise initiative that I have announced, which will give support to small and medium size firms, are very much drawn from the business improvement scheme. My hon. Friend's constituency will be one part of the country that will be eligible for the higher rate of grant for those companies that wish to have access to the enterprise initiative—[Interruption.] I shall not give in detail the criteria for RSA now because if I do I shall be accused of filibustering by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
We are not changing the essential criteria or the statutory basis for regional selective assistance, but we shall put emphasis on additionality and making increased provision for RSA because we believe that some people who did not previously apply will apply now because the regional development grant is not available.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members remain deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to retain the same amount of money that is given to regional aid, first, because the Government have already cut regional aid by £300 million, as the Minister has admitted, and, secondly, because changing to aid on a selective basis enables the Government to cut by administrative fiat?
We have heard about the problems of the large firms, but there are also problems for smaller firms. Is the Minister aware that, despite his profession of Government support for small firms, the abolition of automatic grants will be a body blow to small firms because they do not have the knowhow or the time to apply for selective grants?

Mr. Clarke: I note the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about our commitment to the regions. I think that he is being over-cautious about a change in the nature of the support given to the regions. I do not know whether the. Labour party, which continually cites figures from 1979. wishes to return to regional policy exactly as it was and to


return to increased spending on all projects regardless of cost per job limits. A huge amount of money went into Sullom Voe. That was a desirable investment, conducted by oil companies, at the edge of the Shetlands and employing only a few people permanently, but it was put there because oil was there. The Labour Government's regional policy made a major contribution to that investment to the great benefit of the oil companies but not of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Small firms that are disadvantaged by applying for selective assistance are catered for in our White Paper to a considerable extent by the fact that the new grants that have been announced for the development areas will make it easy for firms with up to 25 employees to receive the grants that I announced for investment and innovation. The simplicity of the scheme aims, in part, at meeting the hon. Gentleman's point that it can sometimes be difficult for the smallest firms to go through the machinery of selective application.

Sir Anthony Grant: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the effect of his new regional policy will be to stem the migration of people from the assisted areas into high growth areas such as Cambridgeshire, where the pressures have become intolerable?
With regard to the welcome new initiative of linking small firms with the universities, will my right hon. and learned Friend please study the important initiatives of the company Cambridge Robotics, which have been referred to his Department and which are extremely interesting in this respect?

Mr. Clarke: For my own reasons, which coincide in part with those of my hon. Friend—I do not represent an East Anglian constituency, so our reasons are not wholly the same — I want a south to north flow of business and jobs, and therefore of people, if that reduces pressures on land prices, house values and planning applications in my hon. Friend's part of the country and in many others. To do that, we must encourage the continued growth of the northern economy and strengthen its quality of management, to ensure that the north performs at the best levels of marketing, quality, design and the other things that I have already mentioned. I trust that this policy will have the effect that my hon. Friend wants.
I shall certainly examine the case that my hon. Friend cited as an example of good links between industry and the universities. Cambridge science park and most things around Cambridge university are excellent examples of how British universities can catch up with the American practice of forging such links.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does the Minister agree that anyone with £100,000 to invest three or four years ago would have been better off buying a house in London, watching its value double, and getting a tax incentive to do so? Why do the farmers in the fat south receive protection and subsidies, and the defence industries get handouts; yet when it comes to northern industries, all they get is a dab of lipstick on the face and their crutches kicked away?

Mr. Clarke: The answer could lie in the late 1970s, when northern and midlands industries found that they

were surviving on nothing but a diet of protection, subsidies and handouts. That did not turn out successfully, and I do not think that that was an alternative policy to which we are likely to return.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that industrial development in the north-east has been fossilised by purely automatic grants that have gone to the same old companies year after year — companies that have been shedding rather than recruiting labour? Does he accept that small businesses in the north will be cheering his announcement tonight?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the general effect of his proposals will be to reduce distortions between assisted and non-assisted areas, within assisted areas, between development areas and intermediate areas?

Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis. As he said, some firms became expert at obtaining grant because they knew it was available in a locality, and some larger firms relied openly on it. Skilled consultants, or their own employees, were successful in working the system and obtaining grants. We must make use of the money in the most effective fashion.
As regards distortions, there will be still a clear distinction between development areas, intermediate areas and the rest, but the abolition of regional development grant for example, will, to some extent, remove distortions as between intermediate and development areas.

Mr. Jack Thompson: In the time that the Minister took to present his statement, did he realise that he extended the division between the north and the south significantly? Does he recognise that, particularly in the north of England, there is a dearth of small businesses? When he talks of improving small businesses in such areas, does he accept that greater incentives than those that he has suggested are needed? There is also a need for support for larger industries in the north.
I was interested to hear the Minister's points about the links between industries and schools. They seemed to smack a little of a risk of returning to the position in the 1920s and 1930s, when industries were closely linked with schools. The coal owners in my constituency were the school governors, and if children did not go into the coal industry their parents lost their houses and the children became almost industrial clones. There is a distinct possibility of that happening again.
Does the Minister recognise that, in my constituency, the closure of Ashington colliery by the end of March will mean 350 jobs coming off the market? What, in his new proposals, will compensate for the loss of those jobs?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with part of the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the differences between the north and the south. It is true, in economic and employment terms, that the north still does not have a high enough proportion of people working in small and medium size industry, and that the start-up rate of small businesses is still not adequate in the north. There is a need to ensure that the small and medium size industry that is there achieves excellent standards of management of all kinds. It must be strong to survive and not only a branch line for less successful staff. All the policies that I have announced today are aimed in that direction.
Larger industries will also benefit. They do not need subsidies as much, and they do not need management


support. They have spare management capacity to look after their own marketing, design and exporting, but the climate is made more attractive for large firms if there is a good network of high-quality component suppliers. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said a moment ago, is what we are trying to develop in Scotland. I do not think that coal owners are likely to return to school governing boards.
As far as the loss of jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is concerned, the continued success of the British economy, our ability to stimulate the creation of more small companies, to strengthen small companies that already exist and to carry on building on the success of the enterprise economy that we have already achieved is the best hope for those facing economic changes in his constituency.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great achievements of the Government has been the reduction —indeed, the virtual removal—of restrictive practices in the unions and the skullduggery associated with them? Can he confirm that his proposed measures will have the same effect in the City? If so, will he confirm that the effect in Scotland will be to the benefit of Scottish-based companies?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the improved climate of industrial relations and the fact that we now have the lowest number of strikes for 50 years have been important elements in the revival of the British economy. I agree that restrictive practices are undesirable anywhere. We have tackled them in the trade unions, and in the City with strong regulatory measures, but restrictive practices between large firms in the market place need to be tackled. That is why our Green Paper would ensure that genuinely competitive conditions were maintained, and I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution to the consultations on it.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that the reasons the Government gave for not redefining the boundaries of assisted areas were ill-conceived when one considers that the boundaries were fixed only in 1984? Does he realise that, since that time, in areas such as my Castleford travel-to-work area the mining industry has been wiped out with no assistance given? Will he tell the House what assistance there is in the Green Paper for areas such as that, or will Government policy continue to victimise miners and mining communities? Is it not time such victimisation stopped?

Mr. Clarke: I realise that one of the problems with having a map of any kind for regional policy is that there are always difficulties with boundaries. However, a map is essential for a regional policy, so the boundaries must be reviewed from time to time. That is a long and difficult process, involving an examination of the status of each area.
Such status must be cleared with the EEC and should not be embarked upon too readily. It might be regarded as completely fair to keep moving some travel-to-work areas in, and others out, year in year out, but it would create great uncertainty and diminish the effect of the grants that we offer to attract people to these areas.
I can offer a continuation and strengthening of present policy to areas that do not have assisted area status, and

what I have announced by way of the business initiative and the strengthening of small firms will make a valuable contribution to them.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that towns such as King's Lynn in my constituency, and other cities and towns in Norfolk, such as Norwich and Great Yarmouth, have consistently suffered as a result of distortions caused by regional policy? In the worst cases successful firms have even been bribed out of the area. Can he confirm that his statement will prevent such occurrences in the future and will be welcomed in Norfolk?

Mr. Clarke: There is a downside to regional policy. One of the points of the policy is to attract industry from areas of low unemployment to areas of high unemployment. I do not think I can offer my hon. Friend a reduction in the effectiveness of regional policy, but I can say that conditions in Norfolk and in the south-east—I admit, to a greater extent in the south-east — are being transformed so that complaints about poaching firms are becoming fewer in the parts of the country further to the south in which there are now acute shortages of skilled labour, in which costs of all sorts have soared, and where housing costs are getting out of control. So perhaps the problems will become fewer as we continue to maintain an effective regional policy.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: On a number of occasions the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is speaking on behalf of his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. Is it not time that the House put a stop to this departmental arrogance? We should have statements made from the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office on issues such as regional policy that are crucial to the future of our economy. Can the Minister tell us whether this White Paper has the status of a paper that has the full support of the Scottish and Welsh Offices? Is it a policy paper from those Departments? The Secretary of State for Wales has spoken to us via a press release. We certainly welcome the fact that there will be 30 per cent. additional expenditure over planned figures for the Welsh Development Agency and that, in the coming year, £139 million will be spent on regional policy. However, that is still short of the £300 million, which was the value of RDG to Wales in 1980.
Will the Minister also explain exactly the Government's attitude to regional policy within the EEC? The Government have made great play of the fact that 1992 will mark the advent of the open market. Surely, within that context, a stronger, rather than a weaker, regional policy is required within the United Kingdom. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will stop preventing the EEC from allocating additional expenditure to its social and regional policy funds? What is the position for intermediate firms? We welcome the support for smaller firms, but does the Minister not realise that for the regional economies of Wales and Scotland, as well as for parts of England, the key sector for development is represented by intermediate firms? Will he assure us that there will be support for that type of company?

Mr. Clarke: It has always been the practice in this House, where a statement is made on a policy which has been agreed between the territorial Departments and which is to be applied in exactly the same way in England,


Scotland and Wales and where the arguments are exactly the same, that the lead Department makes the statement. Of course, it would be possible for my statement to be followed by a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, followed by Scottish questioners, and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement, followed by Welsh questioners. We would all be talking about the same thing. My right hon. Friends prefer to remain within the mainstream of United Kingdom politics and I believe that they are right to do so.
With regard to regional policy within the EEC, we are taking considerable advantage of the social and regional funds. We are engaged in discussions with our partners in the EEC at the moment. We support the continuation of regional policy, but we must ensure that we get our fair share of the funds available and that they are used to good purpose in this country—that remains our main aim.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that regional aids and industrial development certificates did Birmingham much more harm than good? The new Government scheme has much to recommend it. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend deal in more detail with two important points. Under the present system the Ministry acts as godfather. Under the new system it will act as God. The people involved in my right hon. and learned Friend's Department — wonderful though they are — have precious little industrial experience. Therefore, they will need to call upon outside people for advice and many of those people will be heavily involved in the economy of their own areas. How will we avoid a feeling of "jobs for the boys"? How will we sort things out so that this scheme will be run properly and fairly and the money will be spent in the right areas?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. When Labour was in office it acted so that people could not invest in Birmingham and it refused industrial development certificates in the fond belief that that would be benefiting the United Kingdom economy and would drive people north. We have put an end to that and other things.
We are not changing the way in which regional selective assistance is operated. As I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we shall continue to depend to a great extent on outside industrialists when appraising selective assistance applications. However, an important point touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) relates to the business initiative and the provision of consultancies, with 50 per cent. support from the Government, which I have already described. Those business initiatives will be organised and delivered entirely by the private sector. We shall provide the funds, but we shall use contractors to organise the schemes. For example, in the case of design we will use the Design Council and in the case of marketing we will use the Institute of Marketing. The consultants used will be private sector consultants, vetted by those bodies for their effectiveness, and we shall merely contribute to the cost of private sector managers helping other private sector managers to improve the quality of performance in their particular business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must take account of the business on the Order Paper. I will allow supplementary questions to continue for a further five minutes. That means that Back Benchers will have had a full hour on this matter. Those hon. Members who are not called will certainly be borne in mind on later occasions.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In all honesty can the Minister point to any body of opinion in Scotland that supports the ending of the automatic element of the regional development grant? Can he give us some clear indication as to how the proposals will reverse the current trend of the concentration of small businesses and service industries in the south-east and the midlands?
On the vital matter of research and development, is an inter-relationship between R and D in defence—as such R and D is extremely important—and civil R and D mentioned anywhere in the White Paper? What is the Government's analysis of the £2 billion that has been spent on R and D in defence?

Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can cite support from the Scottish Council and the Scottish Confederation of British Industry, which is not bad, given that I made my announcement an hour and 10 minutes ago. No doubt other bodies of Scottish opinion will also weigh in in support. I agree that it is important to attract into Scotland, with even more success than has already been achieved, more small business and more service industries to achieve a balanced economy. The Scottish Development Agency has already achieved much by using existing measures. Regional selective assistance will be available to continue that work. The new grants that I have announced will be available to small firms in the development areas and the new business initiatives will help to strengthen the quality of existing businesses. I believe that the package is aimed at the objectives that the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that business men in my constituency who have found themselves hemmed in on all sides by enterprise zones and development areas will be delighted to hear about the ending of RDG and the fact that large sums of money will not be thrown at firms who do not need that money or simply have the misfortune of being located in Wigan? Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that Bolton, receiving hardly any financial aid from his Department, is now experiencing an industrial and commercial boom?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the improved employment prospects for his constituents and people in other parts of the country depend above all else on the continuing performance of the British economy, its growth, our improved productivity and the better quality of our products. Those factors will benefit all the United Kingdom.
In so far as we discriminate between areas, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no point in giving a grant to a firm that happens to be in Wigan and giving it a subsidy simply because it is investing in Wigan if it is competing against a firm next door in Bolton. We shall continue to give grants to firms that want to go to Wigan and can demonstrate that they need selective assistance to do so. The disparity in the unemployment records between most


of the assisted areas and the rest of the United Kingdom is sufficient justification for the continuation of that policy.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a repeated inconsistency in much of what he has said. Let us take a simple example in the St. Helens area. Recently, the Minister's colleague permitted the Warrington urban development corporation to develop 586 acres of Burtonwood, on the edge of St. Helens. St. Helens has an extremely high unemployment rate and yet it is not given any development grant. Am I to understand that St. Helens will get preferential treatment when it comes begging for loans to relieve our unemployment rate? Perhaps, at the same time, the Minister could give an assurance that whoever mans the Manchester office, with responsibility to his Department, will learn to pay the grants on time rather than deluge the small businesses in St. Helens with considerable numbers of forms. When those forms have been sent back that office still wants more information. Does the Minister accept that that practice needs looking at?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that I am correct in saying that St. Helens is an intermediate area. The abolition of regional development grant will have no adverse consequences on the right projects. As an assisted area it will be eligible for the higher rate of grant under the business initiative. I trust that many firms in St. Helens will take advantage of the various initiatives that we shall be promoting through the medium of television, as well as by other means, during the next few weeks. To some extent, therefore, that preferential treatment for St. Helens will help the local economy.
I take note of the hon. Gentleman's points about bureaucracy in our regional offices. We are extending our regional network and creating more regional offices to be close to the businesses concerned, which should help, but we shall certainly continue to ensure that, as in 99 per cent. of the cases, we operate our schemes with minimum bureaucracy and maximum speed.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for many years the chorus from a multitude of smaller companies throughout the country has been that they are simply unaware of what the DTI has on offer? Will he therefore step up the communications effort, not only from the centre but from his regional offices, so that more and more companies are aware of the opportunities?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have been a large number of programmes in the DTI over the years and some have remained a well-kept secret from

the outside world. We therefore intend to concentrate heavily on the programmes identified in the enterprise initiative. We shall be marketing them very strongly to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses and their managers are aware of what the Government have on offer. I hope that my hon. Friend's sensible words will be listened to carefully by a few people on the Opposition Front Bench who will no doubt start to complain as soon as we let the public know about these programmes, designed to help them, through television and other media.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all those hon. Members—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I have noted the names of those hon. Members and I shall give them preference on later occasions. Now I shall take first the point of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have two points. First, you referred to the fairly lengthy period of questioning of the Minister responsible. As you will recall, there was a packed House when we started and many people who were called for questions later disappeared. It is also worth noting that many of there were Privy Councillors who had their little say, then off they went. I think you ought to bear that in mind next time you call people for questions. Some of us stay to the bitter end.
Secondly, there is an important point about responsibility for the tabling of questions arising from this statement. It could well be argued that, if the Minister has removed responsibility away from himself to the Civil Service—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's first question. I note what he has said. I take into consideration all kinds of things when calling hon. Members at Question Time. It is a courtesy of the House that, if one is here for a debate or Question Time, one should remain.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. You are responsible for the tabling of questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to put a question to the Minister.

Mr. Skinner: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he wants to put a question to a Minister.

Points of Order

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following yesterday's outrageous events in the Chamber, perhaps you heard on the radio yesterday afternoon the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) saying that, although he had been suspended from the House, he intended to repeat the incident as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is strictly hypothetical.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order has nothing to do with the statement or today's questions. I shall raise it now. I gave notice to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), that I was going to raise this point of order because it concerns him. In raising this point of order, I want to make it clear that I cast no aspersions whatsoever on his integrity. I have the highest regard and the greatest respect for him, but last night, in his winding-up speech, he declared an interest in a company. I raised the matter briefly on a point of order. The Minister has an interest in a company called Hamilton and Kinneil Estates Ltd. There is no doubt that that company and other similar companies would benefit when the legislation debated yesterday is enacted. It is unprecedented for a Government Minister to be responsible for legislation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said last night. It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests and for the Committee of Selection.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is a ministerial rule.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the ministerial rules. The hon. Gentleman should address his comments to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure you are aware, you are held in deep respect by the House, but the House is also of the opinion that, on some occasions, you have a very difficult job to do. Many hon. Members, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, would like to help you in the execution of your duties. With that in mind, I am putting to you this point of order, and am seeking your advice.
Yesterday, an hon. Member—I believe that he is an hon. Member of this House, although, like most other hon. Members, I have never clapped eyes on him before —contrived to get himself suspended from the sitting of the House. It seems that there is a growing band of imitators of that venerated eccentric, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What can possibly be the point of order for me? The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he would like to be helpful. He is now being most unhelpful.

Mr. Marlow: I am coming to the helpful point. It appears that it is possible for hon. Members to see themselves as martyrs without even having to pay for a box of matches to set the conflagration alight. If hon. Members who were suspended lost their pay—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to what was done yesterday. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that I do have a difficult task. It would help me and the whole House enormously if hon. Members stuck strictly to the rules and conventions of this House.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), about a Minister declaring an interest, could I draw your attention to the fact that some time ago I sought permission to place in the Library of the House the rules of procedure for Ministers. They state clearly that Ministers with departmental responsibilities must divest themselves of their financial interest in companies which would benefit from their administration.
At the time, you ruled that it was not in order for that document to be placed in the Library, but I draw the matter to your attention because, with great respect, it is not a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. Under those rules, the Minister quite properly declared an interest. What is at issue is whether the Minister, in having an interest, is in breach of regulations laid down by the Crown through the Prime Minister in respect of the duty of Ministers to Parliament. Would you therefore look back at my earlier submission and consider whether that document, which every Minister receives, ought to be made available to the House so that hon. Members know the rules that govern Ministers in the conduct of financial business in which they have an interest?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are nine of them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I am not responsible for the ministerial rules. They certainly exist and the matter should be taken up with those who are concerned with them.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just before Christmas, you had the misfortune, in some ways, to apologise to me and I readily accepted that apology. Today I want to apologise to you because I do not feel that it is good for Parliament if hon. Members shout out from sedentary positions, as I did. In that spirit, could you please do something about the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman and can only say that what went on between us was misrepresented in some quarters. Shouted interjections across the Chamber, from whichever side, do not help our proceedings and I hope that, during the remainder of this Session, and of this Parliament, we may continue along the parliamentary lines of good behaviour.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome what you said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I crave your assistance because the Committee of Selection will be meeting on the Housing (Scotland) Bill and, due to the lack of Tory Members from Scotland, it is probably inevitable that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will be a member of the


Committee, or will be nominated. I ask for your assurance that no selection will be made for the Committee until you have made a pronouncement on this vexatious matter.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I am not responsible for the Committee of Selection, but I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has just said will have been heard by the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Bowen Wells: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I did not call the hon. Member to put a question on the statement.

Mr. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you of your words about the frustration of sitting on the Back Benches of Parliament, particularly in this Parliament, and bring to your attention the fact that the frustration could have been mollified a little if hon. Members representing constituencies which paid regional development grants and other imposts had been permitted to take part in the debate on the trade and industry statement made today?

Mr. Speaker: Again I say to the hon. Member that I know it is a life of great frustration on the Back Benches, but what may be a disappointment one day could perhaps be a happiness on another.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you accept that an hon. Member who has broken the rules and has paid the penalty by being suspended should nevertheless have his reputation defended? Will you accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) yesterday acted from the highest motives? Is it relevant, in view of some of the remarks that have been made, for the point to be understood that my hon. Friend was concerned about an eight-month-old child who desperately requires open heart surgery?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is unfair. I have no idea what motives are in the minds of Members when they speak. I regret what happened yesterday. I accept, as the hon. Member has just said, that ours is a life of very great frustration, and frustration takes all kinds of forms.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Something that you said earlier may be misinterpreted. You said, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) raised the issue of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), serving on the Committee to consider the Housing (Scotland) Bill, that that was not your responsibility. I cast no aspersions, but are you sure that, in that you are responsible for the conduct of the House, you are not concerned as to whether the Committee of Selection chooses people who, very honourably, as in the case of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, have declared an interest? Furthermore, should the Crown rules on the conduct of Ministers be made available? The Crown rules have not yet been put in the Library. Should not you, as the Speaker, responsible for the conduct of the House, insist that those rules are put in the Library so that we can know where we are in relation to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West who is a Government Minister responsible for highly controversial legislation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the point that has been made. It is not for the Chair to dictate to the Select Committee who should be appointed. I say again that what has been said will undoubtedly have been heard on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a regular attender here and is called regularly, but it is unfair for him to seek, under the cloak of a point of order, to achieve an answer to a question that he would have wished to put to the Minister. If it is a matter for me, I will deal with it.

Mr. Skinner: If we can clear up the misunderstanding that occurred earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out to you that at the end of the day it is a matter for you as to whether parliamentary questions can be laid in the Table Office. That was the point I was trying to establish.
I want to draw to the attention of you and the House that we shall have a new set of rules on grants being made regionally and selectively. If we take a line through the nationalised industries, Ministers are not responsible for day-to-day administration. However, it was possible for any Member of Parliament to put down a question on grants that were obtainable or otherwise in his or her constituency, which would be accepted by the Table Office and the Minister would be responsible. But it is not the same with the day-to-day administration of nationalised industries.
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, what may arise out of the changes in the Minister's statement and ask whether it will still be the same. Will hon. Members be able to ask, by a parliamentary question or otherwise, whether some consultancy in their area has obtained a grant or failed to obtain a grant? Will the element of day-to-day administration apply in this case as it does in nationalised industries, or will we have a free run? Many of my hon. Friends fear that the abandonment of the financial guidelines will mean a period of graft, corruption and backhanders.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have heard, as the whole House heard, that a Bill will be presented today. I have no knowledge of what is in the Bill, but I have no doubt that the matter raised by the hon. Member will be relevant to the debate on it.

BILL PRESENTED

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS (TERMINATION)

Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Rifkind and Mr. Robert Atkins, presented a Bill to preclude the making of grants under Part II of the Industrial Development Act 1982 after 31 March 1988 unless previously applied for and to restrict payment of such grants in certain cases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Post Office Exclusive Privilege (Extinction) Bill

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extinguish the Post Office exclusive privilege of conveying letters.
I am not seeking to privatise the Post Office, although that may be no bad thing. I am not seeking to limit or control it. I merely want to see alternative letter deliveries permitted. The Post Office will not lose a single postman or pillar box — all I am asking for is competition. If confession is good for the soul, competition is good for industry.
We should look at what happened when we removed British Telecom's monopoly on the production of telephones. Five years ago we were all using standard telephones, which we stirred up with a finger, however arthritic the finger or however difficult it was for elderly people. Today we are on the brink of having pocket-size, portable, push-button telephones for everyone. That is the kind of magic which competition achieves in industry. It refreshes the parts which monopolies and Socialism do not reach.
The refreshing quality of the Government is their willingness to tackle some of the antique institutions of our economy. The monuments to Herbert Morrison's ghost — the old nationalised industries — are all being modernised and given a shake up. Surely a privilege which was granted by Charles II in the 1660s should not survive into the 1990s.
It is a happy chance that today Lord Young has chosen to define in his White Paper the new focus of his Department's activities for the rest of the Parliament. Paramount among those is to encourage competition and to tackle restrictive practices. I can think of no better or more appropriate starting point than the Post Office. We all know that it is hopelessly flawed.
We are all fond of our local postman who struggles through all kinds of weather and past the dogs to get the letters to our letter boxes, but behind him or her in the sorting office all the old Micky Mouse restrictive practices are going on — the practices which practically brought Fleet street to its knees. That is why our first-class letter post has deteriorated so badly and why we have to endure the annual Christmas threat of a Post Office strike. I am sure that the Post Office management would welcome competition, because it would help to bring its own unruly labour force into line.
A doubt expressed to me on this subject is that if we allowed competition into delivery of letters, urban Britain would get quick and cheap postal services while rural areas and offshore islands would lose out. Let me assure the House that that theory is completely without foundation. The private sector delivers milk and newspapers to the most remote corners of our country without the need for monopoly milkmen or paperboys. Nor do we need to worry about the cost of delivering those letters. The cost of a bar of chocolate is exactly the same in the Orkneys as it is in Orpington. In other words, when the private sector is in charge it is not worth the trouble to make an exception and to charge more for long distances.
Another doubt that is raised is whether the existing commercial delivery services, such as TNT and Postplan plc, are interested in delivering letters. That really does not

matter. I do not know whether they are or not. When there was a strike in the Post Office in 1971, within a few days 562 contractors up and down the country had applied for licences to deliver letters. With even more remarkable speed they formed a network that they called the association of mail services, and they covered the whole country. That happened despite the fact that competition had been suppressed for more than 300 years.
I believe that the Government have the power under the Post Office Act 1969 to suspend the Post Office monopoly or reduce the minimum charge currently imposed by law from £1 to say 5p. No special legislation is needed to do that.
All hon. Members are in the House as a result of a competitive process. Democracy involves alternatives, and all hon. Members nominally support the right of the public to political choice. A monopoly such as the Post Office is an exclusive privilege to supply a service without competition and is therefore undemocratic.
If the Labour party is opposed to deregulation of the post, is it also opposed to competition in other areas where we take competition for granted? Would it approve of a state monopoly in the provision of shoes, trousers, biscuits, cars or other types of service? The Socialists do not dare to reveal their true colours on this issue because, if they did, they would face public ridicule and electoral humiliation. Instead, they seek to defend the remaining pockets of monopoly trades union privilege on the orders of their trades union paymasters. That is the only possible reason for opposing my Bill.

Mr. Dave Nellist: In opposing the Bill, I wish to begin by placing on record my thanks for the help that has been given to me by my comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), and to say at the outset that we intend to divide the House. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), a former Postmaster-General, for his assistance.
The Post Office letter monopoly has existed for almost 400 years. Recently it was confirmed in the Telecommunications Act 1984, which set a lower limit of £1 per letter on the charge for private delivery. The operation of a national planned and co-ordinated service with universal rates of delivery has made British postal services the envy of the world. That was admitted by the Institute of Economic Affairs, one of the organisations which briefed the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). That is a Right-wing body, which recently confirmed that the Post Office comes out well on international comparison.
The Post Office has been profitable for at least 10 years. It has contributed £400 million to the Treasury during that period and its after-tax profits to April 1987 were £131 million, not least because of the work and effort put in by postal workers throughout the country, as a result of which productivity has risen by 20 per cent. over the past five years. That is why the fat cats in the City of London and the so-called learned institutes such as IEA and the Adam Smith Institute are awaiting with glee the pickings from the next round of the Prime Minister's sale of the century, which is being trailed today by the hon. Member for Billericay.
A year ago, the Right-wing Centre for Policy Studies advocated the phased privatisation of the Post Office. Since then, the Post Office has been split and reorganised


into four separate businesses, resulting in managers being bigger fish in smaller ponds. The eyes of the Right are firmly on Girobank and the counter services, not only because those businesses are worth £86,000 million, but because the counter services occupy valuable and profitable high street sites in every town and city in the country.
Despite the Prime Minister's election promises that the royal mail was safe from privatisation, the pressure is clearly building up from the Right wing, and it will have to be met by a national campaign by postal workers, supported by other trade unionists inside and outside the industry, to defend our publicly-owned service from the privateers and the vultures of the Right of society.
The Post Office has 100,000 letter boxes, 28,000 vans, and 45,000 delivery staff on our streets every morning. In the few days before Christmas they delivered 100 million items each day, which is more than twice as much as all its competitors deliver in a year. There has been an enormous growth in the past five years in the delivery of mail — about 25 per cent. since 1982. Sir Bryan Nicholson predicts a further 6.5 per cent. growth in this financial year. The fact that there were 91 strikes between April and November last year is the result of continued attacks by management on all aspects of the working conditions of postal staff. In my view, and in the view of other London Members, postal staff were justified in campaigning before Christmas for a reduction in their 43-hour working week; it was done not only for their own benefit but to increase the number of full-time staff, to reduce the number of casual staff and to make a dent in the horrific levels of mass unemployment that we have had in the past nine years under a Tory Government.
The Bill is about lifting the letter monopoly. It would have dramatic effects on rural communities. In my view —I suspect it is the view of most hon. Members—mail is a social service, especially in this era of divided and elderly families. Servicing rural areas, particularly the outlying areas, is inherently unprofitable at 18p a letter. The present inter-city traffic subsidises letters between smaller towns and villages and outlying areas to the tune of £130 million a year which is the cost of subsidisation; that is 6 per cent. of the turnover of the royal mail. If the letter monopoly went, the universal post and stamp would inevitably go. Letters to people living outside cities would cost as much as three or four times the present rate. The 75p letter could become a reality. The Tories prate on about the supposed benefits of competitive pressures. Those pressures would inevitably force the abandonment of door-to-door delivery for all areas and the introduction of collection boxes in small towns, and villages, and on the high streets. The cities would not be immune either. Even in central London, without the Post Office letter monopoly, the level of competition facing the Post Office would mean that it would need the same number of offices and delivery staff to provide its services. But if the volume of traffic went down, the pressure would force charges to rise.
The gainers would be the Rupert Murdochs of this world, with his firm TNT. They wait like vultures for the pickings of big business and the big City trade. The losers would be the millions who do not live in urban areas, and the thousands of postal workers, whose jobs would be put in jeopardy.
The hon. Member for Billericay says that rural postal services would not suffer. But higher postal charges for

those living outside the big cities would act like an additional local tax. The Right wing that supports the arguments of the hon. Member for Billericay, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, argues that people living in rural areas should not expect to have better treatment than those who live in cities. It says that people choose whether to live in rural areas, with long drives to their doors, or to live in accessible urban blocks of flats. Some commuters who live 20 or 30 miles from London may take that decision. I thought until today that the Tory argument was in favour of the preservation of rural communities, and not only because most of their seats are in those areas. The pressure that will be put on those who do not live in rural areas by choice but were born and brought up there will be the responsibility of those who vote for the Bill.
According to The Economist, courier services are springing up in London like weeds. There is Postplan, Link Up, Business Post Ltd, and Metro Associates. In November I drew to the attention of the House the fact that there is now one in Coventry called Coventry Couriers. On 10 November I asked for a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry. I have waited in deafening silence for that statement. Coventry Couriers is a cowboy business which charges 10p an item, breaking the 1981 legal monopoly under which such letters should not be delivered for a charge of less than £1 per item. The firm charges £1 but offers a 90 per cent. discount if people pay their bills straightaway. It is operating under that margin of legality under thus so-called law and order Government.
I have here some letters delivered by that firm. One about immunisation was delivered to my two-year-old daughter, Charlotte, from the area health authority in Coventry on 12 December. I have letters from various local firms such as estate agents and stationers. The franking is designed to look exactly like Post Office franking so as to give a veneer of respectability to the service. That firm is living like a leech off the pressure on the area health authority to cut its costs because of the £1·5 million cut in its budget.
If this is a Government of law and order, what action is the Department of Trade and Industry taking about these illegal operations? Why have there not been prosecutions? Why does the DTI not stop these people breaking the Tories' own rules? The Tories seem to have a pathological hatred of publicly-owned industries. They denigrate them. Then, after privatisation—and it takes a warped imagination to come out with such a phrase—we are all expected to believe that BT is now magic : those were the words of the hon. Member for Billericay.
The Tories feed on the fact that nationalised industries in the last 40 years were saddled with debts and lavish compensation payments. Because all the old managers were still in charge, the miners said in the late '40s, "We are a new broom with old bristles." Nationalised industries may be state owned, but they are still managed by people who are inherently against public ownership. I believe that Sir Bryan Nicholson falls into that category. Such people are not there to defend publicly owned industries and to extend them but to prepare them for privatisation. Those industries have failed in private hands, as we saw in the case of power, coal, steel and transport. Yet we, the taxpayers and the working people, are being saddled with their debts and compensation payments.
There is an alternative. We could restore the image of nationalised industries and give credence to our


forefathers and mothers who campaigned in the Labour movement for public ownership by having genuine public ownership. Those who work in the Post Office and in other nationalised industries, together with the trade union movement representing the wider population and the Government, should organise the industries on a tripartite basis to provide not for the pirates and the privateers whom the hon. Member for Billericay represents, but for the whole population, including the rural communities which my hon. Friends and I represent. I urge the House to reject the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 202.

Division No. 128]
[5.23 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Holt, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amos, Alan
Janman, Timothy


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Ashby, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Atkinson, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Knowles, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Bellingham, Henry
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lord, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
McCrindle, Robert


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Body, Sir Richard
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Marland, Paul


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Miller, Hal


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Mills, Iain


Buck, Sir Antony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Budgen, Nicholas
Mudd, David


Burns, Simon
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Paice, James


Chapman, Sydney
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Powell, William (Corby)


Conway, Derek
Raffan, Keith


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Redwood, John


Curry, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Riddick, Graham


Day, Stephen
Rost, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Dover, Den
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Sims, Roger


Forth, Eric
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


French, Douglas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gale, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gardiner, George
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Thorne, Neil


Gow, Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Tracey, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hayes, Jerry
Ward, John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv NE)
Watts, John





Wheeler, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Miss Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. David Wilshire and


Woodcock, Mike
Mr. David Evans.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Allen, Graham
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashdown, Paddy
Grocott, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Battle, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Margaret
Hinchliffe, David


Beggs, Roy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Holland, Stuart


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Blair, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Blunkett, David
Howells, Geraint


Boyes, Roland
Hoyle, Doug


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buchan, Norman
Hume, John


Buckley, George
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kilfedder, James


Clay, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clelland, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lambie, David


Cohen, Harry
Lamond, James


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cox, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, J.
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alastair
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McFall, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Douglas, Dick
McWilliam, John


Dunnachie, James
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galbraith, Samuel
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie






Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerald


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Randall, Stuart
Wall, Pat


Redmond, Martin
Wallace, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Waller, Gary


Reid, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Anthony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, James


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Harry Ewing and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Dave Nellist.

Question accordingly negatived

Orders or the Day

Social Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 5

UP-RATING ORDERS

'(1) It is hereby declared that the orders to which this section applies were validly made and that the Secretary of State is under no duty to revoke them.
(2) The orders to which this section applies are—

(a) the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987;
(b) the Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order 1987.'—[Mr. Scott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 19 to 21.

Mr. Scott: The amendments are consequential on the new clause.
The House knows that the error in the calculation of the retail price index has had an effect on the levels of social security benefits. Indeed, in the statement that I made to the House on 18 December I set out our plans for special payments and we are pressing ahead with those arrangements. I made clear our full recognition of our moral obligation in the matter and that we were doing something about it, but the House has recognised that we were not bound legally to make these payments, and that we acted in good faith in basing the benefit rates of payment on the RPI as published.
Nevertheless, we believe that it is desirable to introduce an amendment to the Bill to put beyond doubt the validity of the levels set out in the uprating order which will come into effect in April. That will be the effect of the new clause, and it is because we want to do it at the earliest opportunity that we are introducing it on Report.
Similar considerations apply to the Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order, which likewise requires an increase in line with prices.
I believe that the reasons for the new clause are well understood and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

INDEXING OF CHILD BENEFIT

`In section 63(3) of the Social Security Act 1986, for "or (d)" there shall be substituted", (d) or (f)".'—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4—Uprating of Child Benefit—


'In paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 leave out :—
(c)or (d) above" and insert :—
(c), (d) or, in any Order having effect on or after 10th April 1989, (f), (child benefit), above.".'.

Mr. Cook: The effect of the new clause may not be immediately apparent, but I am advised that it will correctly give effect to our intention, which is to include child benefit among those benefits which are automatically index-linked under the 1986 Act and to prevent it from suffering the fate of benefits that are not automatically index-linked, such as the death grant, which was allowed to wither until it was of such insignificance that the Government were able to move in and kill it off.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has tabled the similar new clause 4. I note that the hon. Gentleman has been heavily briefing the press that our new clause would take immediate effect whereas his would not take effect until next year. I would not be unhappy if my new clause had the effect of forcing an increase in child benefit this April, but I would be somewhat surprised if it had that effect since we have already passed the Up-rating (No. 2) Order, which gives effect to increases this April. I rather suspect that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's new clause and mine would be identical, although the wording may be different.
For the avoidance of doubt, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be voting for both new clauses and, as they both achieve identical objectives, it would be strange to differentiate between them. I appreciate that some Conservative Members may, for political reasons, wish to vote for his new clause rather than mine. I only urge them all to agree to vote for the same one, to maintain voting strength.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt him so early in his speech. I felt that it might help the House if I were to explain. I was advised that if the remaining stages of this Bill were completed quickly and his new clause were adopted, it would be possible for the uprating called for to be implemented in time for the coming April. So there would be a difference in meaning between my new clause 4 and his new clause I, in the unlikely event that the Bill completed all its stages within, say, the next three or four weeks.

Mr. Cook: I should regard such an outcome as delightful, but perhaps I could put it to the Minister that we are willing to compromise on this point and if that is what would oblige him to resist our new clause, I am willing to come or go with him about April.
Our new clause is prompted by the recent history of child benefit which twice in the past three years has not been uprated in line with inflation. As a result, mothers in Britain now lose £30 per child per year that they would have received had the benefit been uprated to its value in 1979. The sum of £30 is significant to a mother operating on a tight budget; it is the equivalent of a good winter coat or two new pairs of shoes. It would be sufficient to keep a child well shod throughout the year.
If that is not bad enough, it is clear that the new Secretary of State for Social Services has what can only be described as a vigorous distaste for child benefit which he has hinted at on a number of occasions. In reply to a

number of my hon. Friends in November, he assured them that child benefit under this Government would be kept "under constant review", which many people outside the House and some Opposition Members not unreasonably interpreted as meaning that child benefit would be under constant threat.
That statement has been made by the Government since the election. It contrasts markedly with statements made by the Conservative party at election time. It would be possible to fill a slim dictionary of quotations with expressions of support for child benefit by Conservative Members around polling day. Those quotations vary from the statement by the Prime Minister in 1979, when she said that the Conservatives were impatient to implement the child benefit system, to the statement by the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he was the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security and said during the last general election that child benefit would continue as a non-means-tested universal payment, paid to the mother and tax-free. He said that there ought to be no question about that.
It is my objective to maximise cross-party support for child benefit. I will, therefore, spare the House my outrage about that commitment being consigned to whatever oubliette Central Office maintains for manifesto commitments. Instead, I want to undertake the perhaps perverse duty for an Opposition Member of urging Conservative Members to recognise that their manifesto was correct and to stick with it.
I begin that task by reminding those Members that child benefit replaced a tax allowance. It may help them to like child benefit if they think of it as a tax allowance. Had it remained a tax allowance, it would almost certainly have done better under this Government than it has as a cash benefit. Personal tax allowances have gone up under this Government by some 15 per cent. By comparison, child benefit has gone down by 3 per cent. That has the strikingly odd result that the tax allowance to a married man, which is supposed to assist him with the cost of maintaining a wife, has increased in real value while the cash benefit offered to him towards the cost of maintaining his children has gone down.
5.45 pm
Most critics of child benefit persist in misunderstanding it. They treat it solely as a means of helping the poor. But the main function of child benefit is to redistribute cash not from the rich to the poor, but from the childless to families with children, and that is an objective for which nearly every civilised country has some mechanism. Not only do they all provide help with the cost of children, but, overwhelmingly, the countries of western Europe provide more help than we do.
The income figures for households with children show how right those countries are. Two thirds of households with children have an average income below the national average; two thirds of households without children have an average income above the national average. Those figures demonstrate what we all know from our own experience, which is that the period of raising children is a period of double pressure, when households face a lower income and at the same time higher costs.
That brings me to the second reason why I believe that Conservative Members should wish to maintain the real value of child benefit. I note that the buzz word of this Administration in social security is "targeting". If


targeting is the criterion by which we are to judge child benefit, we are obliged to award it an alpha plus. If the objective is to help with the costs of children, child benefit hits 100 per cent. of its targets. Its take-up is absolute; it is simple; it is easy to understand; and it is well known. It is a universal benefit and there is, therefore, no stigma in claiming it. Collecting it can be done with dignity because it is part of one entitlement as a citizen.
Better still, the benefit goes to the mother and, in practice, it is the mother who still, in nine cases out of ten, pays for the grocery basket. It is interesting that a survey by the Child Poverty Action Group discovered that 95 per cent. of mothers claiming child benefit said that they at least sometimes used that benefit to pay for children's clothing. One is six said that they always used it to pay for clothing. It is clear that those mothers were using child benefit as the means by which they ensured that their children were decently clad. For women unable to work because they have young children, child benefit provides the only income that they can call their own and on which they can depend weekly.
This is one of the occasions when the decision of the House may be affected by the lopsided male bias in our representation in the Chamber. If the composition of the Chamber remotely approached a fair representation of the proportion of women in our society, I do not believe that there would be a hope of our tolerating the freezing of child benefit.
So far, I have argued that it is important to maintain child benefit because it redistributes income from the childless to families with children and because, within households with children, it redistributes spending power from the male to the mother. But it is also important in helping families out of the poverty trap, and it may be worth recalling that the benefit was brought in to replace a tax allowance precisely because a cash benefit gives greater help to low-income families who may often be too poor to pay tax. Even today, 1·3 million families in receipt of child benefit pay no income tax. For them, the introduction of child benefit was a progressive measure which has given them help that they would otherwise not have received.
There is another subsidiary role of child benefit in helping families out of poverty. The aspect that makes it possible to help families out of poverty is precisely that feature which its critics most object to. It is a flat-rate benefit which is not means-tested and so it does not penalise the families whose father betters himself by getting that bit extra in income. The Government appear determined to push more and more families on to means-tested benefits. The decision to freeze child benefit last November makes another 15,000 households liable to means-tested benfits by leaving them with an income below the entitlement level of means-tested benefits.
The problem is not only that we are ending up with more households on means-tested benefits, but that, at the same time, the Government are sharply accelerating the rate at which those means-tested benefits taper off. Thus, housing benefit, as from next April, will taper off at the rate of 85p for every additional pound in net income. The new family credit will taper off at 70p for every additional pound in income. Many families, as a result, will end up with a marginal rate of taxation of 90 per cent. — a higher rate than is paid by the wealthiest family in the land, but which on this occasion will he met by some of the poorest households in the land.
Child benefit is one of the last surviving ways of softening that ferocious marginal rate of taxation, and it gives families an incentive to struggle out of the poverty trap. Its value is dramatically illustrated if we consider a family of four in which both parents are out of work. While child benefit exists, one of those parents needs to obtain a job with a wage of only £130 a week to leave the family 10 per cent. better off than they are while that parent is unemployed. If child benefit were not there, the parent would need to land a job paying £190 a week to achieve the same effect. That is a difference of £60. I appreciate that there is at present no proposal to remove child benefit in its entirety, but the longer that child benefit is frozen, the higher the parent must jump in starting wages to escape the poverty trap.
That is an argument which weighs with Opposition Members. I am bound to say, however, that it ought to weigh all the more heavily with Conservative Members who belong to a party which readily talks the language of incentives, independence and self-reliance. If they are sincere in seeking to achieve a society that represents those values, they ought to cherish child benefit, rather than allowing its value to decline in relation to means-tested benefits.
Most hon. Members will have received a briefing from the organisation "Save Child Benefit", and I am sure that they have diligently read the text of that memorandum. However, in case they omitted to do so, I invite them to look at the last page, which lists the 50 members of "Save Child Benefit". It is an exalted collection of members of the poverty lobby and the women's movement. and includes some remarkable establishment names, such as the Church of England Children's Society, the Mothers Union, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Salvation Army.
Those are not front organisations for the Labour movement. I am not aware that we are affiliated to the Mothers Union, or that it is affiliated to our constituency parties. That is not the radical end, the extremist fringe of the feminist movement, but the establishment in the women's movement. It is, in a sense, rooted in the backyards of Conservative Members, and my new clause is rooted in their own history.
Leafing through past debates on the issue which stretch back for more than a decade, I was delighted to note that, when child benefit was introduced in 1975, the Conservative party tabled art amendment to the Bill seeking to provide for the regular indexing of child benefit with inflation. Indeed, the amendment was moved by the Minister of Trade and Industry, who has just been announcing to the House the abolition of a large part of his Department's function. His amendment was more militant than mine: it attempted to provide for indexation of child benefit every six months, and I cheerfully concede to the Minister that that goes rather further than I am prepared to go.
My new clause is more modest and moderate, and seeks only an annual uprating of the value of child benefit. However, the case for that uprating is made all the stronger because, since 1975, we have experienced the effect of the Rooker-Wise amendment to the Finance Bill of 1977, which provided for annual uprating of tax thresholds. Now, nearly every other significant long-term national insurance benefit is uprated annually, as are all


the tax thresholds. Child benefit, however, is conspicuously subject to the vagaries of the Government and what the current Secretary of State for Social Services can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to disgorge.
There is another instructive parallel with the Rooker-Wise amendment. The amendment was carried by support from Government Back Benchers who voted with the Opposition. Together, Opposition and Government Back Benchers were able to force the Government of the day to do what was right. If all those who have expressed support in the past for the uprating of child benefit, and all Conservative Members who are known to have made strong statements of support for it retention, were to vote with us tonight, we should achieve the same historic victory. All that is required is for them to show the same courage and join us in the Lobbies to protect and give a guaranteed future to the one benefit that mothers can claim as their own.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to have the opportunity to commend my new clause 4 to the House. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will shortly make known that they have decided to accept it, because there are many very good reasons for their doing so, many of which have been put to the House ably and, in my opinion, convincingly by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has just spoken for the Opposition.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the difficulty in which the House finds itself is really because of the confused history of child benefits, which many people have forgotten. They have forgotten that such benefits emanated from the old child tax allowances. It is only some 10 years since the old tax allowance for children was done away with, and child benefit was put in its stead. But that has already been forgotten, so people do not realise that their child benefit is the way in which the Government reduce the burden of taxation for families.
Equally, of course, child benefits grew out of the family allowances that were brought in in 1945, with all-party agreement. Family allowances, because they were not taxed and did not arise from contributions, did not become part of the national insurance system either. They were a very popular benefit from the start, always very cheap to administer and always with a very high take-up. That remains the case, although the name has now been changed to child benefit. However, because they have never quite belonged in any of the major parts of the redistribution of income system, nobody quite understands where child benefits now fit into the general structure of welfare and family income support.
There are some people — I do not personally think that there are very many, but I know that there are some in this House, and there may be a certain number outside — who feel embarrassed about claiming their child benefit, because they have forgotten the history, and do not understand where the money is coming from and why they should be entitled to it. They feel that it is money for nothing, and that they have not done anything to deserve it. I personally think that mothers deserve credit for the work that they undertake on behalf of the nation, and that we should not be stingy with mothers who have children to support.
But there is also a kind of snobbery, which is unattractive, in the mouths of people who say that they do

not need child benefit. They are implying that there are two nations, and that they belong to the superior half of the country which is able to look after itself and its family, and does not need help from anyone. They concede, of course, that there is also the subsidiary sub-culture of people who cannot manage and have to be given help, although it is no doubt humiliating for them.
I absolutely reject that type of approach. I think that it is quite wrong for the Conservative party or any member of it to slip into that attitude. The people who feel like that would accept a tax cut because they would feel that in some way it was their own money coming back to them. Equally, they would draw their national insurance pensions because they would not feel ashamed to draw something to which they felt that they had contributed and to which they were therefore entitled. However, they do not quite understand child benefit, so they like to make it very clear that they are embarrassed by it and that they do not need it.
6 pm
There is also, I am afraid, still a degree of unspoken resentment because of the fact that the child benefit goes direct to the mother. The men probably do not like to complain outright that that is the root of their objection; but we recall the difficulties that the Labour party had 10 years ago when it was decided that the tax allowances, which of course were for the benefit of the wage earner, should be done away with and that the money should be made good instead to the same family, but in the form of a direct credit to the mother. There was a problem within the Labour party over the "wallet to handbag" dispute. Now, unfortunately, we find that Conservatives are divided on similar lines where they see that the money is being transferred from the taxpayer to his wife.
I think that we can rise above those misunderstandings. This debate gives us the opportunity to look at the issues. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have supported new clause 4. I trust that the Department of Health and Social Security has taken note of all the arguments that we have been advancing in recent weeks. Some people think that it would be better just to pay child benefits on proof of need because that would target the benefits to the people who really need help. That indeed is what is happening in the Bill, where we are moving from the unpopular family income supplement to the far preferable — but, I think, still defective — family credit. I will explain why I do not think that that form of targeting is the right form of targeting.
In 1977 the number of supplementary benefit claimants was under 3 million. At the end of 1987. the number of claimants had risen to more than 5 million. That is a significant social change and a significant increase in the number of people obliged to go to the DHSS in order to have enough money to maintain themselves and their families above the poverty line. If we look more widely than the claimants and take in the whole household, the numbers are much more serious and indeed alarming. Looking at the total number of people in dependency on means-tested benefits of one kind or another in 1983, including supplementary benefit, housing benefits and the family income supplement, the number was estimated at 14 million. That is a serious figure. By 1987, it had gone up to 16 million.
But worse than that, from a parliamentary answer that I received in the past few weeks, it seems that there are


another 4 million or 6 million people who are entitled to means-tested benefit, but who do not claim it either because they do not understand that they are entitled or because they are too proud to claim—which is very often the reason. It is particularly important not to drive those people down, as they see it, to become second-rate citizens. That surely should be a Conservative principle. Indeed, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has embraced the idea of helping people out of dependency. He made it known that that was one of his particular targets when he took over the job. Yet he is going about it in precisely the wrong way.
I think that we ought not to be increasing the numbers. Quite apart from the social factors, looking at the workings of the economy, it is wrong to put people in a position where they are not supposed to be working because they are in receipt of benefit. What we do by that is to add to the numbers of people who are in the inert sector of the economy and have to be supported by other people's efforts rather than belonging to the dynamic sector where people work and save to make the economy work. It is bad economics and bad social policy to add to the number of people on means-tested benefits.
Let us suppose that child benefit continues to diminish in real value as it is diminishing as a result of the decision that the Department has announced for the current year. That is a drop of about 4 per cent. in the real value. That would mean that there would be still more people on the means test. Simultaneously, we are proposing to add substantially to the number of people on the means test by the introduction of the community charge. I do not want to debate the merits of that measure, but we have recognised that the community charge will be more than people who earn very low incomes or who have no incomes at all can pay. They will be shovelled on to the means test as well. If more than 20 million are already entitled and we are to add a whole lot more, targeting on the basis of the means test has got to stop—otherwise we will have more have-nots in the country than haves. The dynamics of the economy will go quite wrong.
The decision not to uprate the child benefit this year, with only a 4 per cent. difference—I agree that that is not a great figure — is important. From another parliamentary answer, I learned that 15,000 more families with 30,000 dependent children are expected to become entitled to income-related benefits. We do not know exactly what number that means, but it must be at least another 50,000 people who will be thrown on to the heap by the Department's decision just on this matter of uprating child benefit in this one year.
I think that it was a step in the wrong direction for several reasons. Perhaps there is something that will appeal to Conservative Members. In the Conservative manifesto, they will see that we said:
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now.
It is possible to read into that a double meaning, I suppose. If people were relying on its real value continuing in the light of that commitment, it has already been proved that they read it wrong. It has already ceased to be true that child benefit will continue to be paid as it was at the time of the general election. It has fallen to what it was, less 4 per cent. I do not think that my right hon. Friends should invite their supporters on the Conservative Benches to play a trick such as that on 10,000 mothers in every average-sized parliamentary constituency. More than 6·5 million

mothers draw this benefit and many will have noted what was said about child benefit at the time of the election, because they value it.
We are being invited now to play a trick on those mothers and say, "Aha, you have got it wrong. What that sentence really meant was that it would remain at the same arithmetical figure, regardless of its real value." If one is in business in the private sector, one cannot afford to play tricks like that on one's customers, or one will not stay in business for long. I do not believe that we should treat 6·5 million mothers in that way either. That is my particular point of view.
There is a fundamental reason for giving special help to families. I do not want to take up too much time, particularly as we were late starting on the debate. However, this is an important opportunity to go over the ground, and many people are involved in what the House is going to decide about this matter.
A breadwinner with children and a single person without dependants get the same rate for the job from their work. The employer is not called on, and cannot be expected, to differentiate between the needs of a single person and the needs of a breadwinner with a number of dependants. The employer cannot make that difference, but the tax collector can. That was how it was decided as long ago as the end of the 18th century, when the income tax system was brought in. William Pitt decided that someone with children to support should be enabled to claim a child allowance so that he did not pay as much tax as someone with only a wife and himself, or himself alone, to support.
That principle was the right one. It was in fact discontinued, I believe, for a time during the 19th century and reinstated again in the tax system early in the 20th century. I think that we should stick to it, but of course not everyone is in the range of tax liability.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are many single people on low incomes paying tax and that if we continue with his proposition they will be contributing through the tax system to pay increased child benefit to couples with substantial incomes who do not need them? Surely it is better for the resources available to be targeted on the growing number of people to whom my hon. Friend has referred. My hon. Friend has elucidated that the number is growing; surely that is evidence that the Government's policy is working, not evidence that we should be going in the opposite direction.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I do not think we can say that the Government's policy of freeing people from dependency is working. There has been a significant rise in the number of people who are dependent on means-tested benefit. More than that, single people who have to pay tax should recognise that their tax goes into the system and that part of the benefit goes to married couples with children. But someone brought up those single people. They should be willing to contribute to bringing up the next generation in their turn, even though they are riot married and do not have children of their own. We belong to a continuing society and those who have had the benefit of being brought up in Britain must recognise that they have a duty to those who will be brought up in Britain in future.

Mr. Frank Field: Is not another answer by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)


to his hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that he is mistaking where we should be making cuts so that we can reduce the rate of taxation? We should not be deploying that argument. We should not be comparing a low-waged single person with a well-off family. We should be looking at the whole range of tax allowances and phasing them out so that we can have tax rates of something like 13p in the pound. That would meet the point about increasing child benefit.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: We should sit in the House until midnight if I were to start again on the campaign for tax credit. We may touch on it on another occasion; I have not changed my views about it.
People who are not in the tax system cannot get a differentiation in their spending power because they have family responsibilities. As long ago as the end of the 18th century that problem was also recognised. It is nothing new. The magistrates in Speenhamland decided that they would use parish funds to subsidise poor families with children. Many people have laughed at them, and, because of the effect of its intervention in the labour market, the system had to be wound up.
The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was a measure primarily to help large families, because they were the people who were most affected by the high prices of food. Free public education was established in 1870, with a similar effect. The 20th century saw the beginning of the national insurance system for dependants. In the 1940s the National Health Service was set up, which was to be of more use to a large family group than to a smaller one. In 1945 family allowances were introduced, and in the 1970s there was the family income supplement. Now, in 1988, we are embarking on family credit.
We recognise the value of all those measures, because we know that nutritional standards, a good environment, reasonable clothing and stable and secure family life are very important in the upbringing of the citizens of the next generation. Wherever the money comes from, the income of families with children should not be reduced. I regret the fact that this 4 per cent. reduction is on the programme for the coming year.
Is all this means testing the right way to help? More than half the mothers who claim child benefit are in families which pay more tax than the value of their benefits. Since we have dismantled child tax allowances, bringing that system back would be an administrative nightmare and would complicate PAYE for employers in a way that we cannot contemplate. The same applies to the ridiculous suggestion of bringing child benefit back into the tax system. That would be a clear example of churning and double counting. It is not a helpful suggestion.
For taxpayers, child benefit is their tax cut. If taxes are to be reduced this year, let them be targeted on families this time, by increasing child benefit rather than by releasing the money preferentially to single people, as happened in 1987. By his welcome and well-received tax cut of 2 per cent., the Chancellor actually gave more benefit to single people than to married couples, and married couples with children did not receive any particular benefit at all in recognition of their family responsibilities. That was wrong. This year, if tax cuts are again in the pipeline—as we are told—I trust that the Chancellor this time will think seriously about increasing

the benefit to families and targeting benefit on families preferentially by increasing child benefits. That would be the right way.
What is to be done for people on low incomes who pay little tax or no tax at all? Do we carry on forcing them down into dependency and leaving them to claim family credit, or do we try to find a way to give them a form of help which they can see to be their own money as of right? That is really what the Conservative party should be seeking to do. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that obligation seriously and will realise that they have a golden opportunity to reform the system and must not waste time. People should receive money in income support which they will not lose if they work or if they save to better themselves.
Among the 4 to 6 million non-claimants are many people in Kensington whom I know and whom I honour because of their determination to keep themselves away from the need to apply for means-tested benefit. We should be encouraging that spirit rather than making it more and more difficult for such people.
6.15 pm
The right answer is to rescue the national insurance principle and add to the system the benefit for children. Pensioners accept their national insurance pension without any humiliation, but people also spend a number of years unable to work at the start of life. That period should also be a national insurance responsibility.
I agree with Winston Churchill, who said that the national insurance principle should provide a floor through which no one can fall but above which they can rise as high as they are able. We should embrace that principle and put it into effect. Everyone who is liable to pay tax during their working years should be accepted as a member of the national insurance fund. Let them claim national insurance during the years of inability to support themselves over the whole cycle of life, in childhood as well as in retirement. Insured citizens in Britain should be held above poverty all through life—at the start of life just as much as when they come to retirement and are no longer able to support themselves because of old age. Under the insurance principle, they would pay their contributions during middle life.
We now have a system of earnings-related contributions and flat-rate benefits that was introduced by the Conservative party — by my noble Friend Lord Joseph, in 1972. It was the right answer. His initiative put the national insurance fund on a proper and sound basis, but it has not been followed up. This is the opportunity to do so. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate to say whether the Government will give an undertaking to review the national insurance fund, its finances, its operations and its commitments, with particular reference to family income support. That is plainly the way to liberate millions from dependency and give them back their self-respect.

Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief, partly because the first two speeches have covered the ground that needs to be covered. However, I shall pick up one point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) ended his speech. He very ably drew one lesson from the experience of the Labour Government in 1975 by pointing out how important it was for Conservative Members to act on their own conscience. Indeed, thinking back to the


1974–76 Government, most hon. Members would be hard-pressed to remember who was in that Government, but most hon. Members can remember the Lawson-RookerWise amendment. It seems that the important moral that my hon. Friend was drawing, although he did not trouble to underline it, was that if Governments are to be effective, it is crucial that they should have independent Back Benchers behind them. We have one hon. Member in her place today, who, rightly, is remembered from that Parliament because she voted as she believed it was important to vote. When one is in opposition it is not always that easy to vote against the Whip. It must be many many times more difficult to vote against the Whip in government. During that period of the Labour Government two of my hon. Friends stood out—my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), whose constituency was then Coventry, South-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
I hope that tonight Conservative Members will act with similar courage. Time is often taken up, particularly by people in the Press Gallery, debating who will be the next on the Front Bench and who will be moved sideways or down, and that also commands a lot of interest among Members. But that is of momentary importance compared with influencing the course of Government. I am sad to say that the previous Labour Government was usually influenced when Back Benchers rather than Whips won control. I hope in the near future to serve as a Back Bencher when my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is Secretary of State. I shall do my best to organise votes against him on those matters when, although his heart will be with us, the whipping system will be against us.
In some ways, the debate is simple, but it also has a complexity. When the Secretary of State made his uprating statement, perhaps because he was new in the job, he presented it as though there were clear choices. Today's debate shows that we do not have clear choices. The Government have a number of objectives, some of which can clash.
Some of the objectives touched upon by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) are central to the Government's philosophy. It is said that the Government support the family. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the importance of this benefit going to women as of right. That objective, which the Tory party holds high, is one side of the equation of competing objectives.
The Government also believe in tax equity—that at any one time a balance must be struck between what people contribute, given their different incomes and family responsibilities. It has been the Government's prejudice, with which I agree, that wherever there is doubt one should decide in favour of taxpayers with children and against those without such a responsibility.
That has been the rhetoric, but the sad fact is that the record of Budgets since 1979 shows that, despite what they say, the Government have weighted the tax system in favour of single people and childless couples and against those with children. Again, this is a chance for Tory Back Benchers to assert principles on which many of them have been elected during the past three years.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a valid point in an intervention when he asked how we can defend the payment of child benefit to our constituents on £20,000 a year when many of our constituents pay tax on

low incomes and are single. C'an we defend such a transfer from single people on low incomes to those with children on higher incomes?
I was not commending the ideas of the hon. Member for Kensington on tax credit when I intervened. I was proposing a much simpler scheme. Given that at any one time the Chancellor has forgone taxing 50 per cent. of personal income—the present cost of all the tax benefits and concessions that we give — if we are concerned about meeting the tax equity point for people on low incomes, we should be looking at ways of phasing out those tax benefits so that we can massively reduce the rate of tax. That is the right course to take to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale. A person on a low income would not then be making such a contribution. That is the proper way to deal with the matter. It is not proper to take away from people with children in order to meet the point. The tax equity point is on the same side of the equation when Government Back Benchers think about this issue.

Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the fact that my point has been taken on board. However, does he accept that when the House divides later this evening, it will do so against the background of the existing tax system and not what might be produced at some future date'?

Mr. Field: Just as my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Preston could vote only on the issue before them and made a big difference, so tonight we can vote only on the amendment that we are debating. Perhaps when we discuss the Budget we can return to the matter and be more ambitious in our targets.
Another issue which clearly comes down on one side is the Government's wish to tackle poverty. Here there is a choice between a benefit that we know everybody will pick up, including those who are poor, and a targeted benefit that the Government are now proudly claiming that 85 per cent. will take up, although many Conservative Members must know that if over 60 per cent. do so they will be doing well.
There is a real trade-off there on which Conservative Members can make a decision. Which is the best way to advance? There is the certainty of making sure that all families benefit, although some would argue that some families do not need the money —I hope that I have dealt with that argument—or a targeted approach, as a result of which even on the Government's estimate—they are not worried at the moment because they do not have to face questions about what is happening because the scheme is not in existence—some poor families will not pick up the benefit to which they are entitled. There we see the beginning of the trade-off which shows that the issue is not as simple as the Secretary of State suggested when introducing his uprating statement.
The last point, which I hope will bring hon. Members down firmly in favour of the new clause, is the Government's wish to increase people's independence. If we in the House were serious about that, we would be looking at changes in our tax system which would give us the money, not to increase child benefit by 4 per cent:.—the small amount over which we are squabbling tonight — but by a substantial amount. If we could find the revenue to double the real value of child benefit, we would transform the welfare role. Most single mothers would


throw their books in. The opportunity to build on a part-time income and to conduct their lives without officials poking their sticky fingers into their private lives is one at which most people would jump.
We are talking about whether we should move to an incentive-based society in which all can participate, or whether we should continue in an incentive-based society which excludes that growing under-class which all hon. Members are witnessing in their constituencies, whether we represent prosperous or less prosperous areas.
This is not a clear issue with everything in favour of the argument on one side and everything opposing it on the other. When any political decision is made, a balance must be struck, but I hope that the three speeches that have been made so far tonight have shown overwhelmingly what that balance must be. I hope that tonight Conservative Members will have the courage to make an advance such as we saw in 1975 when, in a small but important way, we began to change our tax system. That change came about as a result of the courage of Back Benchers to take on their Government and I wish hon. Members such success tonight.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Those hon. Members who have already spoken have carefully set out a compelling case. Reference has already been made to the words in last year's Conservative manifesto:
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother.
As has been said, it is possible to interpret those words as meaning merely that child benefit will go on. Nevertheless, the vast bulk of the population who thought about the matter would have assumed that the system was to go on as it is at present ; in other words, that uprating would continue to be built into it. To back away from that would be to adopt a weasly interpretation of those words in the manifesto.
Hon. Members have set out clearly the argument in favour of continuing uprating and the arguments in favour of child benefit as a mechanism. There is not much that I can add to that, but I want briefly to go over the important points.
One important point, as has been said already, is that when child benefit was introduced in 1977 it replaced the child tax and family allowances with a universal benefit. The aim was to extend the child tax allowance to all children. That aim was right. It was accepted at the time and has been accepted since.
As the House knows, child tax allowance has long been a part of our history. It goes back to the days of William Pitt in 1796. Pitt said:
Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and a matter of honour.
It runs against that philosophy not to uprate child benefit.
6.30 pm
We accept the notion that tax allowances should increase in line with inflation which, as the House has heard, is exactly what has been happening. Tax allowances have risen with inflation thanks to the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment and they will continue to do so. If we do not allow child benefit to increase with inflation, we shall be negating part of the essence of the reform introduced in 1977. In a sense, it was a deal. The two old benefits—child tax allowance and family allowance —

went and child benefit was introduced in their place. It was clearly understood that child benefit would rise in the same way as tax allowances had risen. Since then, we have witnessed the institutionalisation and legalisation of the fact that tax allowances rise with inflation. To let child benefit stand still is to backtrack on history. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a relevant point when he asked why poorish taxpayers' money should go to those who are palpably better off. It is because of the history of the arrangements as well as because of the general advantages of child benefit that it is right to continue with the uprating process that has become a familiar part of the system over the past decade.
We know the other arguments in favour of child benefit. It is a secure and uncontested source of help and regular income to those who have to bear the extra cost of bringing up children. William Pitt recognised that extra cost, which is just as real today as it was then. Child benefit implies a regular commitment to the family; surely our party has always stood for trying to help the family and those with children. To backtrack on it would be a very unwelcome move. Child benefit goes to the mother, which is important. It is especially important that it goes to the mother who stays at home and looks after her children, as she does not share the opportunities of working mothers who have their own money in their pockets. Child benefit helps to offset the poverty trap. Its universality, which has been criticised, contains a significant merit: child benefit increases but it does not promote the poverty trap at the same time.
If child benefit is pegged, as the Government intend, we shall hit perhaps not the poorest families — my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that there are other ways of helping the very poorest—but those who are not quite so poor, whose income falls just above the level at which they can claim selective benefits. It must be said that one or two of our other policies also tend to hit that group. I refer to the poll tax and to the introduction of capital limits on housing benefits. It would be a great mistake to go in for a policy that would make life more difficult for those in that group.
I do not understand why the Government have had this change of heart. In the Green Paper on the reform of social security in 1985, the Government said:
The case for changing it"—
child benefit—
has not been made out. The Government do not therefore propose to alter its basis or structure.
Although I acknowledge that it has not been sanctified in statute, I believe that regular uprating has been part of the basis of child benefit. Finally, there is the 1987 manifesto commitment, which there is no need to repeat.
Let me finish with one other quotation. Speaking on 28 July 1980, the then Secretary of State for Social Services said:
it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value." —[Official Report, 28 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 1063.]
Of course, economic circumstances have changed since 1980—for the better. The Government are more able to maintain the uprating than they were in 1980. If one looks at the picture with any sense of humanity, one can see that the right policy is to continue regularly to uprate child benefit.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We had a long debate on this subject in the Standing Committee. Therefore, I propose to put my comments in a nutshell. Nevertheless, they are most sincere. I shall support new clause 1 and I see great merit in new clause 4, too.
The effect of the new clause would be to halt the relative decline in the tax-free income of families with children compared with that of single and childless people. Since 1979, the real level of the single person's tax allowance has risen by 14 per cent. and of the married man's tax allowance by 17 per cent.

Mr. Tim Boswell: My memory is obviously failing me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to refer us to the discussion in the Standing Committee. As I remember it, the Liberal spokesman was absent on a number of occasions. When he was present, he voted consistently with the Labour Opposition. I can remember no debate on child benefit, although some of us might have wished to take part in such a debate.

Mr. Fearn: I remember that the majority of Conservative Members took no part whatever in the debate.
Since 1979 the real level of the married man's tax allowance has risen by 17 per cent., whereas child benefit's real value has declined by 3 per cent. As child benefit replaced the old child tax allowance as well as the family allowance, it is now the only means in the tax and benefit system of achieving some degree of equity between those with, and those without, children. In the run-up to a Budget that is likely to include further cuts in taxation, it seems appropriate to voice the widespread view that increases in child benefit's real value should be seen as a form of tax cut targeted on families with children.
Child benefit can also be seen as an efficient means of redistributing income over a family's life cycle to the point at which it is most needed. Individuals pay national insurance contributions and draw the benefits when they are needed. Similarly, child benefit, paid for through taxation, targets resources to the stage in a family's life at which, whatever its income, needs are greater and that income is usually lower. I maintain that we must retain the true value of child benefit.

Mr. John Maples: Essentially, the five speeches that we have heard so far have been pleas for universal, as opposed to means-tested, benefits. Those pleas have been made eloquently, both by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. However, hon. Members have not extended the logic of the argument to other benefits or pointed out that such arrangements are a recipe for high taxation. I shall return to the argument about universal benefits, because that subject is raised very precisely by this debate.
First, let me reflect that this debate arises because the Government did not uprate child benefit last year. One fact that has emerged, which many people have not realised, is that 3 million of the 12 million who benefit —the 3 million poorest—would not have benefited from an uprating. The failure to uprate has enabled the Secretary of State to direct the additional money to the poorest children as child benefit could never have done. Perhaps we should be grateful that the whole question of how families in need should be helped has been raised.
We spend more than £4·5 billion on child benefit, paying it to nearly 7 million families. Of those 7 million,

two thirds — 4·75 million — pay more tax than they receive in child benefit. That is an incredibly inefficient way of helping the poor and raises three aspects which one might, in the nicest possible way, call nonsense. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to one of them, although he thought that it was a good aspect of child benefit that it transferred income from husbands to wives. It is no function of the state to have one of its agencies, the Inland Revenue, taxing husbands, and another, the Department of Health and Social Security, paying the money over to their wives. We should leave families who are not beneficiaries of child benefit or of the system for helping families with children to look after themselves.
Secondly, it seems nonsense to tax families and to pay them benefits. There are not just transfers from husband to wife; family units pay tax to one agency of the state and receive the same or less money back from another agency of the state. That is an extraordinarily inefficient way of helping the poor and a bad way for the state to interfere in people's lives.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: rose—

Mr. Maples: If I may just make my third point, I shall, of course, give way to my hon. Friend.
Thirdly — this point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) — it seems wrong to tax people who are low earners but who do not happen to have children, and to pay child benefit to people who are often on above-average earnings. One can take as an example a young single person who might be a shop assistant earning about £100 a week. Why should he or she pay tax to help finance the child benefit that is paid to people who may receive one and a half, two or even three times average earnings?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: On my hon. Friend's argument, it would be wrong for a pensioner to draw his national insurance pension and to pay tax at the same time. He ought to renounce his pension.

Mr. Maples: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, old-age pensions are paid from national insurance contributions. People who draw pensions have paid the contributions to finance them. Benefits that are paid for on a contributory basis are entirely different from benefits that are financed out of general taxation. Child benefit is financed out of general taxation; pensions are not.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the size that the pension would be if it were paid out on contributions only? Most people's old-age pensions are not paid because they have built up a contribution record but because of the amount of money that we pay in in the current week.

Mr. Maples: I do not know the precise calculations. However, I do know that one cannot draw the old-age pension without having paid national insurance contributions for a long time. However, one can draw child benefit without ever having paid any tax or national insurance contributions.
To return to my three points relating to the transfers of money from husbands to wives, from families to the Inland Revenue, to the Department of Health and Social Security and back to the families and from low-income earners to high-income earners, it seems to me that we have devised a most inefficient way of helping the poor


and one which involves great expense. It should not be beyond human ingenuity to devise a way of helping poor families. Indeed, I think that we should do so more generously. If, to help poor families, we have to help rich ones also, it is, incredibly expensive. We should try to devise a method of giving such help rather more generously than we do to people who really need it.
All hon. Members who have spoken have made eloquent pleas for universal, as opposed to means-tested, benefits. The ultimate extension of that would be for the state to take 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. of a person's income and to pay 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. back in benefit. I remind my hon. Friends that that is a wholly Socialist idea. It was articulated eloquently and at great length in Anthony Crosland's book, "The Future of Socialism", the overwhelming theme of which is the plea that the Government should raise a large amount of money in taxation. Indeed, eight years after reading it, that is the only thing that I remember clearly about it —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may have been there; I do not know. The overwhelming theme was that the Government should raise large amounts of money in taxation and then give universal benefits, at a high level.
The hon. Members who have spoken have prayed that argument in aid of the present system of child benefit. They did not say that it could perfectly logically be extended to all sorts of other benefits, and that the price that we must pay for it is high taxation such as we saw under the previous Labour Government. That is not the state's business. Its business is raising as little money as it needs to perform its proper functions and to discharge its proper responsibilities. The state should raise as little tax as it possible can to do so. Clearly, one of the state's responsibilities is to help families with children who would otherwise be in need. I would suggest —I feel strongly about this—that it is not the state's business to raise large amounts of taxation to help those families who are not in need, but that is the system we have.
I accept the criticism mentioned by those hon. Members who argued for universal benefits, that means-tested benefits accentuate the poverty trap. That is true.

Sir Ian Gilmour: rose—

Mr. Maples: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend once I have dealt with the question of the poverty trap.
The new social security system which I believe will be introduced this year and in which family credit, income support and housing benefit will be related to after-tax income, will go a long way to ameliorating what has been the worst aspect of the—

Mr. Frank Field: It is tiny.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman says, "It is tiny," but the poverty trap used to be able to reach effective levels of withdrawal of over 100 per cent.— indeed, of 130 per cent. or 135 per cent. As I understand it, under the new system it will never be able to reach 100 per cent. —[Interruption.] There must be a withdrawal rate of means-tested benefit. I do not see anything wrong with that. I do not think that it is the same as taxing people.
To say that giving a person a benefit because they would otherwise be in poverty and in need and then

withdrawing it as they get wealthier is the same as imposing a level of income tax on them is to turn the definitions of tax and benefit on their heads. I accept that there must be a withdrawal rate. The steepness of the taper will reflect what the Government feel they can afford at any given time and their policy and priorities. It seems perfectly reasonable that there should be a taper. That is not the same as a marginal tax rate—

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Sir Ian Gilmour: rose—

Mr. Maples: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The bias of my hon. Friend's argument seems to be that there should be no differentiation in the tax system between families with children and single persons or couples without children. Is that right?

Mr. Maples: No, not entirely, because we have a married man's tax allowance which benefits married men who do not have children. In general, I believe that those people, whether single, married or with children, who have adequate incomes with which to look after themselves and their own affairs should be left to do so. Those who do not should be helped. It may have been forced out of me, but that is a clearer statement of what I think. We should be looking—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing so—for a more effective way of helping families with children who are in need and who would otherwise be in poverty instead of raising £4·6 billion from 7 million families and giving it back to those 7 million when only 2·5 million of the 7 million actually benefit.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has just spoken about inefficiency, but the fact is that he has been unable to suggest any method of giving assistance to families such as he has described which does not involve the most incredibly complicated bureaucracy. It is a characteristic of means-tested benefits that they involve complicated assessments, a large bureaucracy, reviews and, whether we like it or not, stigma and gross interference in the lives of people on low incomes. That may not be of any concern to Conservative Members, but it does concern many people in this country.
There is nothing efficient about means-tested benefits. They fail to carry out the targeting function placed on them. In contrast, universal benefits have the advantages of being cheap to collect. They do not involve complicated reviews, tribunals or assessment officers. They are simply paid to those who qualify by means of a simple fact—in this case that there are children of the relevant age. The present system is an efficient way of paying money and of targeting. It is a fact that at any given level of income, people with children are in a worse financial position than people without children at the same level of income, and it is a fact that most of the people who are in poverty in this country have children.
If it were simple to direct means-tested benefits so that they do reach their targets, poor children would have been lifted out of poverty long ago. We have had eight years of a Government who have told us on every conceivable occasion that they are trying to lift poor families out of their poverty. However, they have manifestly failed to do so.
Those hon. Members who have referred to the tax allowance system and who directed our minds back to the


origins of child benefit were on absolutely the right lines. For many years after the introduction of the family allowance system in, I believe, 1948, we had a dual system. With family allowances, a poor level of money was paid universally. Child tax allowances were more valuable but did not cover the whole population, because they did not include those who were too poor to pay tax. Those two systems continued in tandem, but the position was uneasy and unsatisfactory. Many of us were pleased when the Labour Government decided that the system should be abandoned and child tax allowances should be switched so that we paid child benefit instead.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) reminded the House that people forget that child benefit stands in place of child tax allowances, and he did us a favour in so doing. It is important not to forget that child benefit did not drop from heaven; it stands in place of child tax allowances. Families who previously received child tax allowances were deprived of those allowances because they were being replaced by something that we thought would be better. So the deprivation was in name and not in fact. We favoured child benefit because we truly believed it would benefit children. That it does so has already been pointed out, and I shall not labour the point unduly, but, in view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, it is important to point out that it benefits children because it goes to families who are too low paid to pay tax, and it benefits mothers. Those are substantial advantages.
However, an unexpected result arose from the Government's peculiar method of accounting. I am not making a party political point. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides find it as incomprehensible as I do that child or any other tax allowances are not regarded as a public expense, but child benefit is. Even if the amount paid had been left at exactly the same level as it was when under the heading of child tax allowance, the latter was not counted as public expenditure, but as soon as it was labelled child benefit it became so counted. That is a peculiarity of the Treasury, and it is no justification for taking it out on kids.
When discussing labels and benefits, we must not lose sight of the main fact, which is that we want child benefit to be preserved — nay, increased — in value because families need the money. At any given level of income, childless people are better off than people with children. There is no justification for that. Our society needs children; we need to replace ourselves. We need people to be the future workers who will look after us in our old age, whether they be our own children or those of the community. Children are a benefit, a blessing and a necessity to society, and it is up to us to ensure that they live in families with the necessary financial resources to keep them well, happy and in good order. That is what child benefit is about.
It costs a lot of money to bring up children, and it is perfectly justifiable for single people to pay taxes to help with the care of children. It astonishes me that when hon. Members adduce examples, they always choose the low-paid single person and the wealthy parent. Most parents are not wealthy. If one has children, regardless of whether the mother goes out to work, the family income suffers. Obviously, it suffers most during the time when she stays at home. Most mothers stay at home for considerable periods of time. Clearly, that does tremendous damage to the family income, but when the mother returns to work,

the family income does not suddenly leap to what it would have been. She will probably have lost an opportunity to enhance her income. If one has children, one's expenses when working are higher. Child care must be paid for, arid more has to be spent on domestic equipment and all sorts of things to help with the running of the house. Even two-income families with children find it harder going than two-income families without. These are simple matters, and everyone outside understands them now.
There was a time when Governments were nervous about family allowances and child benefits — arid certainly about abolishing child tax allowances. The hon. Member for Kensington is right. The Labour Government found this a difficult problem and had to be constantly reminded—especially by their Back Benchers—that most of the electorate were women. Governments of any colour make a great mistake when they feel nervous of the voters because they see them as irate males resenting the transfer from their wallets to the handbags. But the handbags are held by more hands than are the wallets.
Because we realised these straightforward facts, we were able to persuade the Labour Government to stick to their guns and go ahead and transfer to child benefit, but we never anticipated that the new device would be used by Governments in the future as an easy way of freezing the benefit or allowing it to be eroded. That was a wholly unexpected side effect. I feel like a doctor who has administered a drug to someone in good faith and then discovers a completely unexpected side effect.
The Government would not dare freeze child tax allowances if they still existed. After the amendment to which copious reference has been made this evening, it has been established that the tax threshold must rise at least in line with prices. That is now the received orthodoxy. The whole establishment has now followed the former rebels. The Government would not have dared to allow child tax allowance values to he eroded. So it is up to all of us who favoured the change to child benefit — not only Opposition Members — to prevent the side effect from continuing. It should be as unthinkable to allow child benefit value to be eroded as to allow tax thresholds to be eroded.
I join my hon. Friends who have called on Conservative Members to act in accordance with their consciences. I give Conservative Members some advice straight from the shoulder. The Government will not harm the Opposition if they resist the new clause. We shall not suffer. Listening to the long list of organisations read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), one knows that the Opposition have, behind and alongside them, many people of all sorts, incomes and constituencies. We shall not be harmed by our stand tonight. The Government arid children will be harmed. Sometimes it is up to Government Back Benchers to defend their Government and compel them to act in the better interests of their party. It does not matter to me if the Conservative Government harm themselves. If that were all that was at stake, I would say, "Go ahead; carry on; we will make the most of it," but I would much rather we did not have to receive any credit for standing firm against the Government tonight, because of the harm that will be done by them to children, families and mothers.
When Conservative Members go into the Lobby tonight they should bear in mind that if they vote in favour of the amendments they will be defending their manifesto. They should remember that, in the end, it is the


Government in power who get the credit for any improvement in benefits. The Opposition will not get the credit even if the amendments are accepted—the credit will go to the Government. However, it is the children who will benefit and that is what is important to us.

7 pm

Mr. Robin Squire: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who has an honourable record on this issue and one that is recognised as such by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
There have been some interesting suggestions about possible changes in the system of taxation or benefits. However, we come back to the fact that any decision tonight will be based upon our existing tax and credit system. Therefore, I restate what has been stated by many other hon. Members: the most effective way, under our present system, to assist the reduction in family poverty is through the payment of child benefit. There is no argument about that. We can argue among ourselves about the balance of priorities and how we would like to change things so that they could be slightly better, but there can be no argument about the payment of child benefit. Indeed, such a payment may be linked with the view that I believe is held by most hon. Members—the defence of the concept of the family. We should not pay lip service to that concept but should translate it into reality.
For some years there has been a net transfer of resources from families to those without families. We must recognise that and the debate takes place within that context. When we consider that trend and the desire to defend the family we should surely conclude that there is no case for reducing, in real terms, the amount of available credit. There is every case for seeking to start to redress the balance and to give practical assistance to families.
I welcome the assistance that has been given to low-income families as a result of the recent changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, my right hon. Friend knows better than any of us that, with the most optimistic take-up figures that may be expected, there will still be between one in four and one in five families who will not take up the means-tested benefit. By definition, those families are the poorest in our society. Some of my colleagues imagine that our problems would be solved if we could only remove the rich people from the system and concentrate on paying those on low incomes. However, they should grasp the central fact that the price of that policy would be that many families would simply not receive the support which we believe they should receive and which the state lays down they are entitled to receive. Indeed, it is interesting that, almost unique to this subject—if I may qualify the word unique — the statement "they do not need it" arises. Certain people seem to be able to say of child benefit, "They do not need it". I do not hear such a statement about tax cuts. I did not hear it when we raised the level of mortgage interest relief. On the contrary, many of my hon. Friends said that that increase was overdue and that things were difficult for first time buyers. However, with regard to child benefit, we have reached the stage of being expert at judging what people do or do not need.
The effect of child benefit for those who are paying more tax than they receive in benefit is that of a tax credit, albeit through a different financial system—the DHSS. We have not changed that system and we can only work within it; indeed, there is no better way.
I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) with considerable respect as he speaks on financial matters with much authority. He almost persuaded me that I had to choose between universal benefits and means-tested benefits. However, I am not sure that I have to make that choice. I believe that a system solely composed of universal benefits would be so inexplicably and disastrously expensive that it would, rightly, be rejected by all my hon. Friends. Equally, a system composed solely of means-tested benefit—under whatever system—would cement a two-class system in our country. There would be a permanent under-class of those who had to apply for every element of assistance. The combination of means-tested and universal benefits avoids that dreadful scenario.
I believe that by linking child benefit to the present system, as proposed in the new clause, we will be able to do something positive for families and especially families in need.

Miss Emma Nicholson: For a number of years the Conservative Women's Organisation—it represents more than 500,000 women throughout the United Kingdom—has made the centrepiece of its submission to the Chancellor every February before his Budget the retention of child benefit as a universal benefit, the retention of child benefit as a real benefit and the continuing payment of child benefit to the mother.
What does the Conservative Women's Organisation mean by a "real benefit?" It means that that benefit should rise in line with inflation and preferably by more than inflation. The meaning of universal benefit is self-explanatory—it should be paid to everyone irrespective of income and background. It should be paid to whoever has children — single parents or married people. The organisation believes that anyone who has a child should benefit. The Conservative Women's Organisation believes that that is important, because it believes it is representing the party of the family.
What does the family mean today? It no longer means a married couple with two or three children with one head of household working. In the past 20 years, the family has changed beyond all recognition. The family now means all sorts of things. It can mean the single parent with a child or more than one child. It can mean a married couple with one person working, although that represents a small fraction of today's families. It can mean two parents working with children. It can mean two parents out of work with children and, of course, it can mean a married couple with no children. The modern family is a very different animal from the sort of family that we may recall if we cast our minds back to the immediate post-war years.
These days, I believe that the definition of the family really means concentrating on helping children. Child benefit is unique, in that it does just that. How have the Chancellor and the Secretary of State responded to the Conservative Women's Organisation's submission this year? They have responded with the worst possible answer — they have frozen child benefit. That has resulted in the wealthy couple, with the non-working wife, continuing


to draw child benefit. Indeed, one couple that I know and value draw child benefit for four children. They then take the children out for dinner at an immensely grand restaurant with the bill coming to about £135—and why not? It is their benefit and it is their right.
However, with the freezing of child benefit, the poor, who depend on child benefit to balance their budgets, have suffered drastically. I do not just mean the statutory single parent with children living in an inner-city environment who may be held up as being most at risk as a result of freezing child benefit. I think of the farmer's wife who lives near me at home. She has only 40 cows and, with milk quotas, is having a terrible time making ends meet and tells me that she cannot do without child benefit. She has only two children. It is a very slender input into her family budget in terms of cash value, but, in terms of the proportion of her budget, it matters immensely. The freezing of child benefit has brought her close to the poverty margin. We have got the worst of all worlds by freezing child benefit. A genuine debate on the value of child benefit to our society is long overdue. Indeed, the debate should be even wider and certainly much better attended than it is tonight.
I hope very much that the Minister will spend considerable time this year discussing within his Department and then in the wider context of Parliament what we should do about child benefit. Every year, child benefit comes up rather like a punchball, but we are lucky if child benefit is raised. Other people believe that it is good if it is frozen. Some people would prefer to have it thrown out of the window. Can we not discuss this thoroughly and properly and then have it either thrown aside, modified or firmly linked to our economic structure, so that the people who receive child benefit—the mothers—know exactly where they stand?
This debate spills over inevitably into the reform of personal taxation. The married man's tax allowance has already been mentioned. That was created at a time when married women did not work. In 1936, 6 per cent. of all married women worked. That figure is now 63 per cent. and married women are the fastest growing sector of the working population, so times have changed. The married man's tax allowance was meant as a bolstering operation: to recognise the value of children and the immense drain that they make on a family budget. The married man's tax allowance is now wholly outdated and goes to a large number of people who have no children. With so many working women, it should be cast aside and forgotten. The money should be recycled and used in a different way. Possibly it should be put towards a universal benefit, such as child allowance.
Some hon. Members have mentioned their unhappiness —quite proper in some respects—about wealthy people receiving child benefit. Speaking from the woman's point of view, there are many older non-working women—the younger married women usually tend to work—whose husbands, although receiving large incomes, do not respond as they should and do not give their wives the housekeeping money that they need to support their children. Their wives are relatively poor, and therefore their children are relatively poorer. It is a grave error to think that, because a man is wealthy and because he is a member of that shrinking band of heads of households who are single earners, he will respond as he should to his

wife. It is a peculiar aberration among the wealthy that they sometimes think that they are poorer than they are and do not even support their own families.
I cannot offer the perfect solution to this ever-growing and difficult problem. I ask for a firm and genuine commitment from the Minister that he will take seriously to heart the need to solve this problem once and for all. He must support the care and nurture of our children in a much broader and more positive and generous way than our country is historically used to doing. 1 have long thought that we undervalue children and, as a society, we suffer as a result.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I cannot help thinking that in this debate we are perhaps straying a little far from the point. In line with the cost of living increase, the Government were proposing to put, in cash terms, an additional £120 million into child benefit, but have decided not to do so. In taking that decision, they have taken account of the key point. However, by putting an increased amount into child benefit, they are spreading these additional resources indiscriminately among all families with children in this country. It is wholly indiscriminate and ineffectual to fire off these resources at families, regardless of income, as this would include families of hon. Members and families of people better paid than hon. Members.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Would my hon. Friend prefer an untargeted tax cut which would relieve the tax burden of families with and without children and of single people? Does he think that that would be a more acceptable use of resources?

Mr. Arnold: No, I do not. We must consider carefully how that £120 million has been applied. By spreading it over the general population, we shall miss having the maximum effect on the very under-class to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred. Better-off families will benefit from such an increase in child benefit, but the families about whom we should be concerned—the under-class, containing 3 million children, who are already on benefit — would lose 10p for every 10p increase in child benefit and get a net cash increase of zero.
It seems far wiser to take the path proposed by the Government, to take that £120 million, add to it afresh £80 million and apply that £200 million to the family credit scheme, which is to be introduced in April, over and above the amount currently applied through family income supplement. That targeting is far more relevant. If we care about the children of this country, we should care for the children of parents who can cope and for those children in the greatest need of resources for their development. The Government are concentrating on those children in need, and they have my support.

Mr. Andrew-Rowe: Almost everything that needs to be said in this debate has been said and I shall be brief. We are debating a balance of pragmatisms. It is wonderful to have theoretical designs and I should love to have such a wonderfully well-integrated tax and benefit system that there was no disincentive for people to go out to work or to catch buses at 6 o'clock in the morning to augment a fully-declared income. These things may one day come about, although I grow increasingly wary of


them. The cost of moving to a fully integrated tax and benefit system is in the short term horrendous and very few Governments would be able to find the resources to do it.
We are now discussing a balance of practicalities. That balance lies in uprating child benefit. For all the reasons listed in the debate tonight, it is important that families, who notoriously are the least likely to understand a complex system of claiming, should be able to receive benefit as of right, rather than having to go through a series of hoops, many of which are difficult to understand, difficult of access or unattractive to them. It is wholly appropriate that, until the system is running better, we should make it possible for people to have a benefit which retains its value year on year, so that they know that, whatever happens to the economy, that part of their income will be secure.
I am conscious of the fact that Ministers are trying to act from good motives. They are trying to target the poorest and to ensure that the least well off families will benefit. One of the mistakes that they make is that they are having to do it within their DHSS budget.
The issue goes wider than that. I have often heard it said with considerable credibility that one would need fewer social workers if the income of the clients of many social workers were higher, and the incomes of social workers were paid from the same budget within the same Ministry.
Referring to the balance of pragmatisms, we should remember that when the Government were elected in 1979, one of their clearest policy statements was that they would become the Government of a society in which perks were done away with; that everything would become a matter of income and income tax; and it would be very much more straightforward. Of course, practicalities have intervened and we have taken policy decisions, such as not phasing out mortgage relief and continuing to allow tax relief for various business expenses, although gradually the Inland Revenue is putting the squeeze on some of them.
It is because we move in an essentially imperfect world that I support strongly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said. On too many occasions, recent policy decisions have squeezed rather harder than is fair those who are just above the poorest level, as we move towards what I hope will be a better system. If we put the little bits of the jigsaw in first, the wrong people are being damaged. For that reason, I support the intention to uprate child benefit.

Mr. Scott: We have had an excellent debate, with strong feelings arising on this issue. We are touching on familiar ground because in the statement and the order we have discussed this year's uprating. I understand why hon. Members have questioned the attitude of the Government and future Governments to the benefit. In essence, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in everything except his conclusion. What we are doing essentially is making a pragmatic and balanced judgment, which flows from the decision of the Government not to uprate child benefit this year, about whether it is right to tie the hands of future Ministers on the use of resources that go into uprating child benefit, or whether they should have the opportunity to decide on the use of those resources year by year, in the light of unforeseeable demands which might exist.

Mr. Raison: My intervention is triggered by the word "resources". This year, more than other years, there are all the signs that resources are available.

Mr. Scott: I am not discussing this year; I am talking about tying the hands of the Government to allocate resources in successive years, ignorant of whether resources will be available or, assuming they are, whether this is the best way to spend them. The House should address that question tonight.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister bring before the House shortly a proposal for the de-indexation of benefits and tax allowances so that there will be total freedom in the future?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. I was trying to identify the issue, which I hope the House will address before voting tonight and will not be carried away by some of the arguments and issues raised, many of which are wider than the pragmatic and balanced decision which I hope hon. Members will make. I hope they will make the right decision when I have had the chance to seek to persuade them to come in my direction, rather than that of the majority of voices in the debate.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and others have talked about possible changes in the pattern of national benefits and insurance in the future, which we are not addressing today. I am sure that Ministers, not just those in the Department, will read with interest the points made and will take them into account in looking at future policies.
Some hon. Members today have said that they look forward to a radical look at child benefit, but that question is not before the House this evening; it is simply whether we should index-link the benefit. Listening to some of the contributions, one would have thought it was a simple choice between index-linking the benefit or abolishing it. That issue is not before the House.
I understand the depth of feeling on the subject and I am sorry, having listened to many of the contributions, that I have to ask hon. Members to reject the new clause. I emphasise—I hope this is common ground—that this is not because the Government do not take seriously or in any way underestimate the importance of improving the help available to families ; quite the contrary. Recognition has been given by Government and Opposition Members to the efforts of the Government on that front. We do not propose to increase child benefit next April under the uprating order, but we are putting far more than it would cost to uprate the benefit into help for families. That has been acknowledged widely in the debate.
The benefit is unique in that it is paid directly to the mother. It is worth reminding the House that the family credit system, which will replace FIS when it comes into operation in April, will be paid to the mother. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) implied that the value of the family credit scheme had somehow been eroded by the Government. The value of family credit for an average earner with two children under 11 will be higher in real terms than it was when we came to office in 1979. Hon. Members are familiar with the figures. This year's non-uprating of child benefit has saved around £120 million net. From next April we shall spend around £100 million


extra on family and income support and over £200 million extra on the family credit scheme. That will be paid directly to mothers.
There is no dispute in the House about the importance of help for families. Our calculation of the relative importance in the social security system of help for different groups has resulted in extra help for families in the system we shall introduce in April. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that we shall put more into helping families than would have been provided had we uprated the benefit by 30p.

Mr. Robin Cook: I do not know whether I misunderstood the Minister, but I thought he said that the current level of child benefit is higher than is necessary to maintain the 1979 value. If so, I point him in the direction of the answers he has given me in the past two months, which clearly state that if the 1979 value were maintained child benefit this April would have to be £7·80, not the £7·25 it will be.

Mr. Scott: That value is for two children under 11. I cannot give an answer across the whole range, but that is the answer I can give and I am assured that it is correct.

Mr. Cook: I confess that I am puzzled. Perhaps I am being slow in following what the Minister is saying, and perhaps he can assist me. I cannot understand the distinction that he makes between this benefit and others. The benefit is paid at a flat rate and its value will be maintained for all earners or those who earn nothing. The Minister's answer plainly implied that its value would need to be increased by 55p to restore its purchasing power of 1979.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps we should pursue the statistics later, but I am advised that from 1979, when the Government came to office, the purchasing power of the benefit has been maintained. We may have opportunities to debate the point but I am assured that before 1979, as compared to the present position, the value is higher.
Before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was saying that the Government judged that it was better to use resources in such a way as to help family credit and income supplement for families with children rather than to uprate benefit by 30p. I do not believe that that option should be taken away from Ministers in future. There is an obvious disagreement about how we should spend these resources. Spending them on a general increase in child benefit would mean that help is spread very thinly to around 7 million families. Most of those families would have little or no real need of the extra 30p, although I do not deny for a moment that they might be very glad to have it.
Another major group of families, the less-well-off, that receives income support and family credit would find an extra 30p important and valuable. But those families would not receive it. If child benefit had been increased they would have lost that money from their other benefits. The point that I am making to the House, therefore, is essentially simple. If we wish to do more to help families in real need, child benefit is not the best-directed way of doing so. The costs are huge. In gross terms, an increase of 10p costs £60 million to implement; in net terms it costs £40 million. Most of the extra money will go to those who do not seriously need it.
The Government have taken the view that it is more sensible this year to direct these resources elsewhere. I

believe that that option should be available to future Governments; not to do that would impose inflexibility upon future Ministers, and that would be inappropriate.
I wish to answer the point that was made by several of my hon. Friends and, indeed, by one or two Opposition Members, that in some way the wording in the Conservative party manifesto or ministerial statements imposes a moral obligation on the Government to uprate child benefit in line with inflation. The words "paid as now" have been interpreted to mean that year by year this benefit will be index-linked. I do not believe that that process can be sustained. The Government have never undertaken to uprate child benefit in line with inflation. That is also the case with tax allowances and, indeed, other social security benefits. If previous Ministers had intended to do that, I am quite sure they would have introduced measures to that effect.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Will my right hon. Friend then say what the words in the manifesto really did mean?

Mr. Scott: The words say that the benefit would be paid as a universal benefit, tax-free, and to the mother. That undertaking has not been changed by anything in this year's uprating. I believe that that obligation was right. I am sure, bearing in mind the pattern of linking other social security benefits to the RPI, that had there been an intention to link this benefit it would have been included in the list by one Government or another.
The other point that I wish to make relates to a suggestion by the hon. Member for Livingston. He says that by referring to our determination to keep the benefit under constant review we shall put it under constant threat. I do not believe that he can read that into it. It is right that this hugely expensive benefit should be kept under constant review, like all other benefits. That is not to say that we plan to change child benefit. It simply says that in a modern welfare state we have an obligation to ensure that available resources are used to the very best effect.
There has been much discussion today about universality and means testing. The point has been well made in the debate that to go entirely for one or other of those systems is unthinkable, but somehow a pragmatic judgment must be made as to where benefits are needed, and the role of means testing. I do not doubt or criticise for a moment the points that have been made this afternoon about the benefits that flow from universal child benefit. Of course I recognise that such a benefit helps all families with children, whatever their other resources. I know that it represents investment in future generations and that the less-well-off are guaranteed some financial help. I know that it is simple to claim, easy to administer, and has virtually a 100 per cent. take-up. I acknowledge all those advantages, but it is only fair to put the disadvantages into the scales.
It is an expensive benefit costing £4·6 billion a year at present. Much of it goes to comfortably off families who cannot in any sense claim to need it. Extra help is not available to go to the most needy because resources that could otherwise go to them are tied up. Equal benefit has to be paid regardless of need. It does not help the poorest who receive income support or family credit, because the level of child benefit is taken into account in establishing entitlement to those benefits. I am simply saying that a


balance must be struck. I acknowledge that advantages flow from universality, but there are disadvantages as well. It is right that the House should recognise them.

Mrs. Wise: I have listened to the Minister's list with interest. He has failed notably to grapple with the point that was made on both sides, that child benefit ought to be compared to tax allowances. That is the historic route. Will he now give the House his view about that? Why should tax allowances be index-linked and not child benefit?

Mr. Scott: We have decided to index-link tax allowances is well as some social security benefits. We have not decided to index-link this benefit. I do not believe, as I have said, that we should tie the hands of future Governments about the way in which this resource might be used. I believe that it was right to use the resources this year, for the reasons that I have outlined to the House, for the family credit scheme and as extra help for families with children within the income support scheme, rather than to give a 30p increase across the board.
It would be wrong to listen to the siren voices asking us today to pre-empt decisions for a future that we cannot foresee about the allocation of resources. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) asked us to make sure that we got this right for all time and had a comprehensive review. It would be bold to say that we could do that, but we are determined to see that the considerable sums of taxpayers' money that are provided for social security are used increasingly to help those most in need. It would not be serving that aim well if we accepted the new clause tonight.

Mr. Robin Cook: I shall respond briefly to the Minister. I am happy to correct his recollection of the Conservative party manifesto. It says that child benefit will continue to be paid as at present, which is not what he quoted to the House. Apparently, we are now to take that commitment as being strictly literal arithmetically. I think that the Minister would accept that many who read the manifesto would form a quite different conclusion, that it meant that the value of child benefit would be maintained as at present.
We have had an excellent debate. I am confirmed in that view because our side—and by "our side", on this occasion, I include all those who have spoken in support of new clauses 2 and 4—won handsomely. There were nine speeches in favour of one or other of the new clauses, or both of them, and three speeches against them. Therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I savour the moment when I am winning before the Division bells ring and we are clobbered in the Lobbies.
There was a curious feature to the debate. It was substantially a debate for and against child benefit. Those who are tempted to follow the Minister into the Lobby tonight to vote against both new clauses should reflect that they will find themselves in the company not only of the Minister but of hon. Members who have spoken explicitly against child benefit and who plainly would favour its abolition. Until the Minister spoke, no one spoke in favour of keeping child benefit but not uprating it. I can understand why no hon. Member felt able to commit

himself to that proposition because it is not tenable intellectually. There is no point in saying that there is a case for retaining the benefit but that that case is not sufficiently strong for the value of the benefit to be maintained.
I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). She made a very convincing case which, were I a Conservative, would have persuaded me to vote for new clause 4. I indicate one point of dissent from her proposition. She said that it was time we had a general debate on child benefit. I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Lady that we seem to have had general debates on child benefit at two-year intervals for some time. It was only in 1984 that the previous Secretary of State for Social Services put child benefit into the melting pot in his review, had an exhaustive examination of it and at the conclusion of that examination agreed, admittedly through gritted teeth, that child benefit served a useful function and should be retained. I am confident that any open, thorough investigation of child benefit would come to precisely the same conclusion that hon. Members have come to in the debate—that it serves its purpose well and there is no more effective way of meeting the cost of children or of breaking the poverty trap.
What was interesting about the debate on the Conservative Benches, because the debate was essentially on those Benches, was that it turned on the dual standards with which some Conservative Members approach cash benefits as distinct from tax allowances. I thought it was beautifully caught in the intervention of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). After that intervention the hon. Member for Lewisham, West found it possible to say a favourable word for the married man's tax allowance.
Perhaps I could advise the House of the cost of the married man's tax allowance, because I nipped out and checked with the Library. I am advised by the Library that in the last financial year, 1986–87, the total cost of that allowance was £4,450 million and in the same year the total cost of child benefit was £4,550 million, almost exactly the same. I cannot for the life of me understand why it should be regarded by some Conservative Members as perfectly right and just that through the tax system we should make available £4,500 million to married men to support their wives but wrong that through the benefit system we should make available £4,500 million to mothers to support their children.
7.45 pm
The argument for the one applies to the other, yet Conservative Members do not appear to be saying that the married man's tax allowance is not the best way to enable poor men to support their wives, or that it is wrong that there should be such a tax allowance because it goes to the Duke of Westminster and gives him help which he does not need to support the Duchess of Westminster. These arguments are not advanced in relation to the married man's tax allowance, yet in effect that allowance is less progressive than child benefit. At least, child benefit also goes to those who are too poor to pay tax and puts cash in the hands of those who fall below the tax threshold.
I make a prediction. Were Conservative Members who wish to see the phasing out of child benefit—our fear is that not uprating the benefit is the way of phasing it out —successful in securing its abolition it would be only a


matter of time before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to re-invent child tax allowances. If he did not do so, we would be about the only country in the western world which gave no help through the benefit system or the tax system to people with children.
The moment the Chancellor came back with such a proposal we would once again be faced with a system that would be less equitable than child benefit because it would put money in the hands mostly of those with the highest incomes and would not put money in the hands of those on the lowest incomes who do not pay tax. That would be less satisfactory as a way of supporting the cost of children because, by and large, it would put money in the hands of the male rather than the mother.
Child benefit is much the best way of meeting the cost of children and breaking the poverty trap. We should keep child benefit. Hon. Members who have heard the clear threat to child benefit in the debate would be well advised to join us in the Lobby and make sure—

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: rose—

Mr. Cook: No, I am concluding my speech. I am so sorry; I did not see that it was my colleague. Of course, I shall give way.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have been advised that the effects of new clause 1 and of new clause 4 would be precisely the same. In the circumstances, I think it would not be in the interests of the House, and hon. Members would not thank me, if I insisted on their coming back later to support new clause 4. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity of recommending to those who feel as strongly as I do about this to vote for new clause 1. If they do not feel able to do that, let them at least abstain. If they do not feel able even to do that, let them write a very strong letter to the Minister, as I hope they will do.

Mr. Cook: As the majority of speeches have come from the Conservative Benches, we will withdraw new clause 1 and will divide on new clause 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We now come to new clause 2.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we be told whether you intend to give us an opportunity to vote on new clause 4?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly there will be an opportunity to divide on new clause 4, but we can deal with new clause 4 only when we have got new clause 2 out of the way.

New Clause 2

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE FOR CHILDREN UNDER TWO

`In section 35(5) of the Social Security Act 1975, at the end there shall be added the words "or any modification which discriminates on grounds of age against severely disabled children under the age of two."!—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are now on an entirely different matter, the payment of the attendance allowance. There are stringent tests which those claiming attendance allowance have to satisfy—[Interruption.]

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear the speech of my hon. Friend. I shall be able to hear her now, because everyone has stopped speaking.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is the most genuine point of order that has ever been put to me in the Chair

Mrs. Beckett: That is not as much of a compliment as it might seem, given some of the points of order that are raised.
As I was saying, there are stringent tests which those who claim attendance allowance have to satisfy before it can be awarded. I am confident that hon. Members on both sides of the House know of cases where attendance allowance has been denied although they might have felt that it should have been awarded. Even when the stringent tests are passed, as again hon. Members on both sides may be aware, a substantial period — six months — elapses before the allowance can be paid. There must be a sufficient degree of need, a sufficient amount of care required and, particularly in the cases of those who are physically disabled, a sufficient degree of pain incurred by those applying for the attendance allowance before there can be any question of the allowance being paid. In effect, for all of that six months, the conditions for the award have to be satisfied.
Many hon. Members will know, from their experience of their own constituency cases, of people who, unfortunately, are not as aware as all of us would wish of the circumstances in which attendance allowance can be claimed or of the fact that they may be entitled to it and who make late, sometimes very late, claims. Indeed, sometimes people have had a degree of pain and suffering and need not just for months but for years, and application for attendance allowance is made so late that the person on account of whose illness it could be paid dies before the award can come through.
There are stringent tests of eligibility for this payment and of the period before such a payment can be made. Six months is a very long time for someone to endure that degree of pain, if those are the circumstances of his or her illness. It is a long time for the individual and those seeking to care for that individual to endure that degree of need without the financial support and what must in those circumstances be the comparatively small amount of relief that attendance allowance may provide.
There is one small group—small in every sense of the word—who, whatever degree of pain or need they are experiencing, have to wait not six months, but two years. Children under the age of two can never, as the law stands, receive attendance allowance. They may well be, and in a number of cases certainly are, ruled out also for a whole range of other benefits.
Partly because resources are always under pressure and, indeed, under this Government are declining, the resources available to social services committees of local authorities and other groups which may seek to alleviate the problems of those in these circumstances are and will always be allocated on the basis of priority. Choices always have to be made and when there are cuts those choices are inevitably harder and the degree of consideration of


priority is all the greater. In a very high percentage of cases, although not invariably, as the Minister is, I know, well aware, the definition of priority used is that of entitlement to other benefits, such as attendance allowance. Those who cannot qualify for attendance allowance, by definition, also often cannot qualify for the other help that might be available.
The argument for the cut-off age of two is based on the development of a normal child, but no normal child of any age could possibly receive an attendance allowance because, apart from the criteria to which I referred at the outset, which every person who applies for attendance allowance must meet, no child can be awarded attendance allowance unless his or her attendance needs are
substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age and sex".
It is absolutely clear, as the Minister has admitted, that some children do fit that definition; they do experience not only the degree of need that would be required for an adult to pass those tests but a degree of need substantially in excess of that experienced by any normal child below the age of two.
There is no logic, justice or compassion in denying children who can pass those existing serious hurdles the payment of attendance allowance merely because when that attendance allowance was first placed on the statute book some 12 years or so ago it was thought right to have a qualifying age of two. The case does not stand up for a second to the serious examination which I am sure it is going to receive at the hands of my hon. Friends, and perhaps of hon. Members on the Government side.
We believe that the case which is being made for the removal of that arbitrary age barrier, that third hurdle for small children and their parents, is something that the House should have considered long ago and that this new clause should be carried tonight.

Mr. Dave Nellist: As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has mentioned, this is the first time for a decade and a half that the full House has had the chance of debating and voting on whether there should be a lower age limit below which an attendance allowance cannot be made to someone with severe mental or physical disabilities. There have been plenty of questions during that period, particularly in the last three or four years, but tonight we have a chance to debate the reasons why the Government believe that the attendance allowance, which they accept should be paid to people over the age of two with disabilities which in many cases can be assessed well before that age, cannot be paid to those children.
As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware, my involvement in this issue began late last year when the grandparents of two young constgirls who are now 22 months old—Vicky and Alex Storer — wrote to me to describe the enormous difficulties the twins face. The family lives in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who is present in the Chamber and who I hope will be supporting this new clause not only in a speech but also in the Lobby. The enormous difficulties with which that family has to cope because of the severity of Vicky's and Alex's disabilities could not fail to move any Member of the House who met the children. The children, with

their parents and their aunt, were in the House with me today in order to publicise the need for this new clause to be carried.
From birth, the disability was clearly diagnosed by the attendant consultant paediatrician, the senior clinical medical officer for the area. Vicky and Alex have suffered much in the first 22 months of their life—heart surgery, brain drainage, fits and frequent resuscitation. In fact, all the social and medical evidence indicates that from their second birthday they will clearly get that attendance allowance, which by April will be a maximum of £33 a week. But why do they have to wait? Why cannot that attendance allowance be paid to them now?
As a parent, with two of my three children of a similar age to Vicky and Alex, one eight months and the other two years old, I have direct experience of the normal problems of and attention demanded by infants. But teething and, recently, conjuctivitis, nightly feeding, and so on, cannot be compared with the strain of coping with children with the degree of disability that Vicky and Alex and children like them suffer. For the first few months of their lives, they required permanent hospital care. It may be that the fact that their mother, Sandra, was formerly a psychiatric nurse at the Walsgrave hospital in Coventry, and Paula, her sister, is currently a nurse at that hospital has helped them to cope, but the strain has certainly told on them.
A £33 attendance allowance would make possible occasional professional help. It would allow Sandra and Peter, the girls' father, to do the shopping and other family jobs, confident that the children were being competently looked after. The job of looking after children with that degree of disability ought to be carried out on a 24-hour basis by a district health authority or a local authority social services department, and there is some help on offer from that direction. But some of the main help in recent months has been from the Crossroads carers assistance scheme, which in the midlands provides assistance to carers looking after people with disabilities, because successive cuts in the funding of the local and district health authorities have made them unable to cope with bairns and families like the Storers.
Because the lower age limit is two years for attendance allowance and five years for mobility allowance, those bairns are denied access to other things. For example, their parents cannot get an orange badge to put on the car to enable them to use parking spaces for the disabled at the hospital, outside the council offices, by the shops or wherever it may be. So what Sandra and Peter have to do is not only to cope with two disabled bairns but also to carry an oxygen cylinder and resuscitation equipment sometimes as much as 100 yards to get to where they want to go.
8 pm
Another consequence of their being unable to get attendance allowance is that from April—we know this because of the changes in social security payments which are going through — there will be a disabled child premium which we understand will be about £6·15 a week. Only those who currently or by April receive attendance or mobility allowance will be entitled to that disabled child premium. The premium covers the axing of additional help that families now receive, such as help with special diets or with laundry; this assistance will be replaced by the


disabled child premium. But families with children under the age of two will not be entitled to the premium because they are not getting an attendance or mobility allowance.
Every hon. Member present in the Chamber or who reads the debate tomorrow in Hansard will know of similar cases in his or her area of children suffering from Down's syndrome, spina bifida, autism, strokes at birth or respiratory, cardiac or intestinal malfunction. I asked the Minister to give us his own assessment for today's debate of how many children under the age of two might be eligible for the new allowance, were the House to pass the clause this evening, but unfortunately those figures have not arrived in time for the debate, so I have to make my own estimate.
Let us say that about 10,000 or 12,000 children could be affected. Shortly before Christmas, the Minister gave me an estimate of the cost of extending provision to these children as about £17 million per year. My only comment on the size of that figure is that it is slightly less than half what it cost to refurbish the offices of the Minister, his Secretary of State and his colleagues across the road from 10 Downing street, that palace with its crystal chandeliers costing £38 million. Half that sum would have provided thousands of families with minimal financial assistance to allow them some extra professional help.
I have been in the House nearly five years, and during that time we have heard a lot about the Tory programme for returning people to the community, particularly when it comes to closing down some of the Victorian hospitals for those with mental handicap or mental illness. There is an element of that in this debate. Sandra and Peter Storer are doing the job of the hospital service. If those bairns were in hospital, they could be costing the taxpayer about £200 a week for professional care. Sandra and Peter are doing that job because they love their family, yet they are not even getting this £33 a week which would help them to cope. It is a cruel hoax for the Tories to speak about returning people to the community as if it was a benefit to the families concerned and then not to provide resources to enable those families to cope.
When we debated this matter in Committee on an amendment which allowed us to raise roughly the same subject matter, the Minister said:
I have some sympathy for some of the points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East".
He said that the argument that we were putting forward was
more difficult to resist, although the Committee should consider long and hard before accepting
the amendment.
One of the reasons that he gave, and I accept it entirely, was his own personal experience. He said:
During the past two years, in my extended family I have had experience of a child who suffered from meningitis soon after birth and who will be severely handicapped for the rest of her life. She is approaching the age of two, when she will get the attendance allowance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1987; c. 62.]
Later in the debate, the Minister said,
The intention in Amendment No. 17 to remove the age limit of two years has a strong, obvious and immediate appeal to anyone who is concerned with handicapped children and the stress … that is felt by families, particularly mothers." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 November 1987; c. 77.]
I quite accept that, with his own experience, the Minister can see the scope of the problem. This leaves me with a simple question. If he understands it from his own

experience, why will he not stand up at the Dispatch Box and extend the entitlement allowance, the conditions for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has said, are stringent, to the 10,000 or 12,000 children who are undergoing this same experience?
The reason that the Minister gave the Committee as to why the Government did not take this position was
it is difficult to make assessments for children under the age of two … all of us who have children under the age of two have to give them a degree of care and attention that would almost certainly lead us, if they were older, to qualify for attendance allowance for much if not all the time. One of my children guaranteed that never once in two years did my wife and I have an uninterrupted night — they were mostly constantly interrupted — but the brother who came afterwards gave us two years of absolute peace, so there is no pattern even in the demands that normal healthy children put on their parents during the night." — [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1987, c. 69.]
I can accept that from my own experience of the past two years. But the children who are diagnosed from birth by all medical and social experts as unlikely to recover from conditions suffered from birth—such as Vicky and Alex—do not fall into the mould which the Minister described of normal children of a similar age. This is riot the normal pattern of parents looking after children. I did not have to carry round an oxygen cylinder and resuscitation equipment, nor did I have to check my bairns every two hours during the nights that I have been at home, and neither did the Minister. But that is the experience of Peter and Sandra Storer and of thousands of parents like them.
In that larger number of 10,000 or 12,000 children, there is a group of children to which I would like to draw attention. There can be absolutely no doubt that, right from birth, they will face horrifying problems in their perhaps tragically short lives. I refer to those who suffer from inherited blood disorders such as sickle sell anaemia or thalassemia major and related haemoglobin disorders. I am grateful for the assistance that I and my colleagues have been given on this by the Organisation for Sickle Cell Anaemia Research—OSCAR. Sickle cell anaemia is an inherited disorder of red blood cells affecting people whose forebears lived in those parts of the world where malaria is a scourge.
It is estimated that there are 4,500 sufferers in the United Kingdom, most of whom live in the major conurbations. The illness is chronic, unpredictable in its recurrence and variable in its manifestations, which usually appear in early infancy. Failing medical intervention, there is a high risk of death before the age of five — before they would become entitled to mobility allowance. If the sufferer survives, she or he risks major organ damage with impaired quality of life and reduced life expectancy. Parents and families face disruption to education, employment and normal family life. It is crucial for the purposes of this debate to understand how this disorder affects young children. At about six months of age, those suffering from sickle cell anaemia may experience a painful swelling of the hands and feet, lowered resistance to infection, bodily pains, tiredness, pallor and jaundice. The abnormal red blood cells are fragile and short-lived, leading to anaemia. These cells lose oxygen and become distorted, obstructing the small blood vessels and causing localised, irreversible tissue damage.
Neither I nor the Minister who will reply to the debate has any personal experience of this in regard to our children such as was mentioned in Committee. This sort


of caring for children is completely different from the upbringing of normal children. There is no cure for sickle cell anaemia. Prophylactic measures include regular penicillin and occasional blood transfusions, high oral fluid intake, warm clothing, well heated rooms and remedial treatment when the painful crises may necessitate hospital admission or day-and-night nursing at home.
I could spend some time describing how all this affects not only the children who suffer from the disorder but their parents and their siblings but, as one would expect with that degree of disability, the effects are also economic and social and impinge on the quality and continuation of family life. The family and the marriage may break up because of the instability brought into the situation by a child with that degree of suffering. Even if the attendance allowance were to be paid, its present level is inadequate. Nevertheless, there would be an element, particularly for children under two, of respite and care available to minimise the effect on the family—although I stress that it ought to be the job of the district health authority or local authority to provide proper 24-hour care for parents and children in that position.
Let me describe a point that was raised in Committee to illustrate the continuation of care that is needed for those who suffer from such conditions as thalassemia major. One of the ways to alleviate the condition partially is by using a drug called, I believe, Desferal, but that drug must be administered over an eight or 10-hour period, several times a week, to children — particularly very young infants—with a hypodermic needle inserted in the stomach overnight. That necessitates the parent constantly getting up to check not only that the baby is all right, but that the needle has not worked itself free from the stomach.
That seems to me to satisfy all the criteria — even with the Government's extended restrictions—for those who need constant supervision. From the age of two, the child — or, rather, the parent — would receive the necessary financial assistance, but the problem is occurring now, and it does not start at the age of two.
It would have been possible, even with the time allocated to tonight's debate, to give a wider range of examples of the problems experienced by the families of a few thousand children in this country who are so severely disabled and face such serious problems that that minor amount of money—£33.00 a week, from April—could provide some degree of alleviation. I trust that my comrades who speak later in the debate will be able to give further examples. However, there has been no serious attempt in the past decade and a half to change the law, and there has been no attempt during the Committee stage to justify the Government's position.
I hope that I am not stealing the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who pointed out that no research had been undertaken to justify the Government's decision that the allowance should start at the age of two. We are discussing children in whom the diagnosis can be made — because of a disorder in the blood, or because of the severity of their physical or mental disability from birth — that their problems will be with them for the rest of their lives, which in many cases are tragically short. There can be no

justification for the Government not to be prepared to cough up a minimal amount such as £17 million to aid the families of such children.
Vicky and Alex were here today. Some hon. Members may have seen them. Certainly, I hope that more publicity will be given to their case in the days ahead. Peter and Sandra, who raised this case, and the children's grandparents, recognised when they first approached me in the autumn of last year that March, when they would be two years old, was probably too early for a change in the law. But they have put themselves out to ensure that other families do not have to undergo, in the months and years ahead, the trauma that they have had to suffer in bringing up their children.
If the Minister and his hon. Friends wish this evening to give some reality to the talk of people being returned to the community, and of the Tory party being the party of the family, they will act tonight. If they wish to give some reality — admittedly, this is a slightly extraneous point—to the view that I expect to hear on Friday, 22 January, when we debate a private Member's Bill on the curtailment of the age limit on abortion, that, following an amniocentesis test at 18 or 20 weeks or later, it is wrong for a foetus to be terminated because it may turn out to have a severe physical or mental disability — if Tory Members care so much about young bairns with disabilities — they will help their families tonight by extending the £33.00 a week attendance allowance to those under two.
I hope that, when we divide the House, we shall have not only the solid assistance of 149 Labour comrades who have corresponded with me over the Christmas recess and promised me their support, but that of some of the Tory Members who have listened to tonight's debate.

Mr. Boswell: The House will be familiar with the lot of a Conservative Back Bencher on a Standing Committee. I had the pleasure of serving on the Social Security Bill Committee. It could be encapsulated in the words of Thomas Hobbes: nasty, brutish and short. If we leave aside the nastiness and the brutishness — although certainly some of the sufferings of which we have heard are indeed nasty and brutish for the families concerned—it is still true that, whichever party happens to form the Government, speeches from Government Back Benchers tend, remarkably, to be short. Nevertheless, students of body language who attended the Committee sittings will have noticed a tendency on my part, if not on that of others, to sympathise with the position advanced tonight. Those of us who are parents of healthy children are bound to feel considerable sensitivity and sympathy on behalf of the children and parents whom we meet to whom that does not apply, and who face dreadful problems.
While I have some sympathy with the new clause, I must tell the House that I do not propose to vote for it. I should like, however, to put down one or two markers. My first, and major, reason is that I find it rather remarkable, and a shade distasteful, that a position on attendance allowance that obtained throughout the period of Labour Government is now being raised, because it is a cause that naturally attracts human sympathy, to the character of a political stunt.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise first that—sadly, in my view—it is now nearly 10 years since


a Labour Government were in office; and, secondly, that nothing would have given us greater pleasure than to be in a position as a Labour Government to carry out precisely this measure? I am 100 per cent. certain that, as an Opposition Back Bencher, the hon. Member would have received a quite different hearing from me, or from anyone else in the position of Minister for Social Security, from that which, sadly, we expect from the Conservative Benches tonight.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments. However, she will be surprised to learn that, even as a new Member, I know enough not to dive into the realms of the hypothetical. I can, however, record that that was the position under the previous Administration. That was a few years ago, and we hope that matters will improve, but we find what is happening tonight remarkable.
It is perhaps part and parcel of the tactics that have been deployed on the Standing Committee, and on other occasions, by the Opposition that the cost of this change is relatively small. The figure that I pencilled in was £13 million. I understand from the Minister that it is now some £17 million—although, as those of us who have worked in advising Government in previous capacities know, even £10 million, or indeed, £1 million, is fought over in departmental budgets nowadays.
If we had a self-denying ordinance from the Opposition that this was the one area in which they were prepared to interest themselves, and that they would, as the Americans say, major on it, that might be one thing. But when it is accompanied by all other issues with which I have much less sympathy — what may be termed consistent, constant and strident ululation, together with the ruthless clocking up of the taximeter of cost—I part company with the Opposition.
During the Committee stage, I busied myself by attempting to keep some record of the overall costs. I found that the cost of the seven items that I could identify exceeded an additional £700 million a year. When I added the uncosted or unquantifiable items, the figure was well over £1 billion a year. What is proposed tonight on that narrow issue must be seen in the context of the general commitment to what I can only call irresponsibility.
The other reason why I have reservations about the new clause is that I believe that there is sense in not merely following the present practice with attendance allowance. We should be looking, as the Government are looking, at the whole aspect of disability. I say that not to put it off, but to try to achieve the right solution. It is easy for us to consider distressful situations that apply to children and say, "Let's do something about them. What's the most obvious and available measure we can adopt? Let's do it." That may not be the right way to proceed and I will explain why.
I want to consider the specifics of the issue. I listened with great care to the debate in Committee and to the Minister's sensitive reply to the points.

Mrs. Beckett: Rubbish.

Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that that is rubbish. I seem to remember that at the time the Minister was treated with respect because he went out of his way — and he can speak for himself on this — to respond sensitively to the points that were made.
The Minister said in Committee that he would have to respond to these points and consider how to deal with them later. First, he will have to consider whether it is possible reliably to assess those children not just before the age of 24 months, but, in practice, before 18 months as there will be a six months waiting period. Further, is it possible to assess a sufficient proportion of those children not to create an undesirable degree of difference of treatment between one class and another? If it is possible to produce a reasonably satisfactory assessment formula so that children can be assessed before the age of 18 months so that attendance allowance can be paid by the age of two years or before, no one would be more pleased than I. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously whether that can be achieved. A situation in which only a handful of cases might be so assessable and which many others would follow later might be invidious.
I know that the Minister spent some time in Committee in considering the next point. Even if an assessment can be made—and I feel instinctively that it could be arid we could perhaps over the years consider reducing the age —would it be possible to make a practical distinction about the level of extra care required for people in that position? I hope and believe that it would be possible to isolate some cases where one could clearly see that extra care was required as the needs were greater. We should then meet such cases in due course.
Finally, as attendance allowance is treated frequently as the passport to other benefits or available facilities, even if the final decision is not to opt for attendance allowance in those cases, will the Minister consider whether some way can be found to achieve a passport system for those children? I very much agree with the hon. Member far Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on that point. It is clear to all hon. Members who have heard the debates and considered the matter that there are many cases of distress. We are grateful as parents that most of us have been spared such cases. We would like to help those people involved. In the sense of the debates that have taken place, I want the Government to consider those matters as matters of the highest priority, if not tonight, then in future.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on this matter. This debate is similar to a fairly long debate that we had in Committee, although the wording of the new clause is different. I am glad that we have had an intervention from the Conservative Benches. The Committee stage would have been more worthwhile had it been possible to have a proper debate across the Floor of the Committee. Conservative Members were clearly bound and gagged by their Whips and did not take any constructive part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Daventry has made valid points and it is worthwhile for me to attempt to respond to them. First, he said that it was not reasonable to consider the matter because the Labour Government had not considered it 10 years ago. The fact that the Labour Government did not consider it is no reason why the Conservative Government or a future Labour Government should not consider it. If the Conservative Government were to restrain themselves to doing only what Labour Governments have done in the past,


presumably Conservative Members would not agree with everything that their Government were doing. The hon. Gentleman's argument was very superficial.
He allied with that point the cost of the total proposals put forward in Committee for improving the lot of disabled people and others. He said that it was approximately £1 billion. Yes, that is a lot of money, but it is only about half of what would be produced by reducing income tax from 27p to 25p in the pound. At a time when that is being actively canvassed and discussed, I should have thought that a reasonable alternative use of those resources—even if not what the hon. Gentleman called "economically responsible"—would certainly have a social responsibility far in excess of its economic cost. Indeed, the small element of £20 million for those children out of £1,000 million is money well spent. Even if the rest of the package is expensive and unacceptable, that is no reason for cutting out the one element which may appeal to the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I reject his argument on that point as well.
The hon. Member for Daventry referred to the need to assess below the age of 18 months and said that there is a danger of discrimination. Of course there is a danger of discrimination. However, discrimination exists now against everyone below the age of two who may well be clearly in need of assistance, and if there were criteria at all, those children would fall within them.
The new clause deals with discrimination. We are currently discriminating against people who clearly should receive some kind of assistance. There are many people over the age of two, including the elderly, whose condition is nothing like as severe as that of some children to whom reference has been made today. It would have been a lesser discrimination to have an ability to pay an allowance before the age of two against a set of criteria. That set of criteria may need to be slightly different because of the kind of children we are talking about and because of the normal pattern of "expected burden" of any children below the age of two. However, surely it is as possible to produce a set of guidelines for those circumstances as it is to produce guidelines for older people. After all, people aged 80, 90 or 100 may be expected to need care and attendance allowance is paid in those circumstances. It should also be practically possible to pay such an allowance for those under the age of two.
The hon. Member for Daventry said that, even if it was possible to make an assessment, it would be difficult to determine the need for extra care. With respect, that question arises in all cases of attendance allowance. No one type of care is needed. Circumstances vary from category to category. We all have constituents who receive attendance allowance and we are pleased about that, although sometimes we think that their cases may be marginal. Others patently need the allowance.
The hon. Member for Daventry said that he was going to make four points, yet I have commented on five that he made. He referred to the passport question. I accept that if there were other ways of getting a passport to other benefits including invalid care allowance which may be passported by attendance allowance, that would be a way out of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, we are not considering them tonight. We are debating a new clause to try to ensure that we make provision for those

children below the age of two who place an extra cost and burden on their parents way beyond the normal responsibility of minding children at that age.
We won the argument in Committee overwhelmingly. In fact, there was not a lot of argument because the Minister agreed with us half the time. I suspect that we will win the argument tonight. I want to remind the Minister briefly of the points rehearsed in Committee which have not been adequately answered. I believe that the Minister acknowledges that extra costs are involved. Therefore, it is a question of getting a mechanism to help parents. There are also extra burdens for the parents of children below the age of two if there is a disability in that when that disability is first diagnosed—and that is likely to be around the age of one — parents will be going backwards and forwards on day trips to hospitals and will incur considerable extra costs. At a later stage they may have some stability in looking after their children, but at the point of diagnosis when they are uncertain about how to cope the extra cost can be even greater than it will be later.
The Minister did not respond in Committee to the question of how there could be objective attendance allowance assessment for older people. If the needs of older people who qualify for attendance allowance can be taken as a barometer, surely it must be possible to devise a system to meet the needs of those below the age of two.
8.30 pm
In Committee we dealt with the issue of community care, or the lack of it. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned the absence in many areas of services that give adequate support to parents with disabled children below the age of two. If those services are not available through the local authorities or the area health authorities, the least that we can do is to give them some flexibility to buy into those services by having such resources. We are not talking about an enormous sum of money, or an enormous departure from principle. We are talking about an area in which at the moment the Government are not looking very bright. I should have thought that, in the case of young disabled children below the age of two, the Government would seek a way forward in which their performance could be seen to be a little more creditable than it has been recently. On that basis, I suggest that the new clause be accepted.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I had not recognised how serious and sad was the case of many young children until that of Mr. and Mrs. Storer and their twins occurred in my constituency, about which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has reminded the House. It was so tragic for those parents to be sure at that early stage that they would have difficulties with their children almost from birth and for many years to come, with little likelihood of any substantial relief or improvement.
Like other people, I consider children and babies to be problems for any parents. It is not easy for all parents for several months. Outsiders do not readily recognise that children may have physical or mental difficulties. When one looks a little more deeply into the real difficulties which such parents must undergo, one realises that almost from the moment that those children arrive home there can be no normal family life. The family is committed to providing children or babies with the basic necessities—feeding them, looking after them, playing with them and


enjoying them—but to disabled children they must be totally committed, which prevents the family from having any normal relaxation.
With babies, at least one can relax for an hour or two when they are in bed. In the sad case of Mr. and Mrs. Storer and their children, there is little opportunity for the family to relax unless someone else takes over. That is when there is need for an attendance allowance. It would provide some relief for the family and enable it to have some physical and mental relaxation and carry on a normal life. They need some recreation so that they can give that tremendously full commitment to their children.
In general, there is an age limit of 18 months plus six months, or two years. It is easy to see how such an arrangement could come about. If one examined statistics and drew a distribution curve to show how difficulties with children come into that curve, one would see that many ailments, illnesses and disabilities are recognised at about 12 months. At that stage it is certain that those disabilities really exist and will continue. In cases such as that of Mr. and Mrs. Storer, those disabilities were recognised when the babies were in hospital, and certainly as soon as they came home there was little doubt. A very well qualified consultant, a lady who does not exaggerate and who does not unnecessarily alarm people, even politicians, as some doctors may do — she is a very realistic and understanding person—said that from a very early stage it was possible to know that those children would undergo physical and mental disabilities which would create problems for the family.
We must look for a way to give support to such families from the earliest possible time. That time may be a few weeks or a few months after they are born. Perhaps we should apply a rule of six months, as we do for the attendance allowances, as that would still bring the time available for payment well forward of two years. We should consider that.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke about the availability of support, whether through attendance allowance or other support. Help should be available directly when those families take the babies home. In my constituency case I had the impression that help was not quickly forthcoming. It was not easy for the parents to find out that help was available.
Even if it is a matter of attendance allowance, one must look at similar cases and different disabilities and ensure that there is medical or social help automatically available to those families and that at an early stage there is somewhere for them to turn to. There are many services available in Britain. I shall not make any political point about how good or bad they are, but they are available. Yet it is not easy to say where help should come from for such families at the time mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the age at which the diagnosis first comes about. Families are taking their children to the hospital to find out about their disabilities. Once they have been properly diagnosed and confirmed, some action can be taken and some procedure put in place to look after those children. But until that time, those weeks and months are desperate times and families have more concern during the time of uncertainty than when the diagnosis is confirmed and they recognise that they have practical difficulties.
I raised that point on Second Reading, partly in the hope that as the Bill went through Committee the matter would be debated. I was not able to serve on the Standing

Committee, but I am sure from the words of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that it was debated. Indeed, there was sympathy from the Government Benches for an improvement in help—perhaps., through the attendance allowance. It is obvious from that there will not be a Government amendment stating what changes should be made.
I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's response. The new clause seeks to ensure that a family receives support from an early stage and that is right. However, I understand that it may well cause problems in its practical application and in providing adequate support in different cases. My hon. Friend might suggest that various reviews are taking place to try to define more precisely the needs of disabled people in general which may also cover the needs of young children and that the objective of the new clause may be achieved better at a later stage in the Bill or in a subsequent Bill.
Such explanations I shall listen to. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that the Government intend to provide cover for the type of cases to which I and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East have referred and the many others that might exist. I hope that he will say that the Government intend to review support available both in the form of attendance allowances and by other means, and to bring forward measures to assist such cases at an appropriate point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) spoke about a time when that might happen, and I hope that it will be in months, not years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me that the Government intend in the near future to introduce measures to provide full and proper support for families with children under two years of age as soon as their disabilities are properly diagnosed. If he does, it may well be that I can support the Government, and not the new clause. Without such an assurance, I shall be tempted to support the clause.

Ms. Primarolo: I want to try to answer some of the points that have been made and to draw the debate back to the essential problem that the new clause seeks to address.
It is regrettable that the h on. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) sought to introduce financial considerations and to calculate how much the Opposition proposals added up to. He may not need reminding, but I shall do so all the same, that each amendment is voted upon individually and he can support this proposal without supporting all the others, although obviously we would wish him to do so. Parents with disabled children do not want sympathy from the House. Sympathy is not enough. Understanding is not enough. It is cheering, but it does not help them.
The hon. Member also asked whether we need some complicated formula to work out whether a child under two requires an attendance allowance. Such a formula already exists in the Bill to work out how everybody else qualifies for an attendance allowance.

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Lady accept that the issue is not whether there is a formula in being, but whether it is appropriate to the special situation and the areas of uncertainty which were rightly identified in Committee in the assessment of the need for and the level of special care for such children? That is the issue on which we await the Minister's reply.

Ms. Primarolo: I do not remember the Minister addressing that point in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) referred to the proposed changes to the Abortion Act 1967 and the fact that it is possible to diagnose hereditary diseases and severe abnormalities before birth. It is possible to work out from that whether a child will require more care than a normal able-bodied child under two.
It is obviously correct that a Labour Government allowed the age bar. It should not have done so, and I hope that the Labour party is now big enough to admit that and to say that the next Labour Government will change it. Comments were made in the previous debate on child benefit about the value that our society places on children and on understanding their needs. I hope that that is greater now than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
This matter was raised with me by my constituents in September of last year and I wrote to the Minister to ask why there was an age bar. The age bar says that even if a child has all the disabilities that would qualify him for an attendance allowance at the age of three, if he is under two, he is disqualified. That age bar has nothing to do with an assessment of a child's needs. The Minister said that clearly in his reply to me of 14 September when he said:
Unfortunately, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
It is an arbitrary line for a cut-off date.
The other main plank of the Government's argument has been that it must be proved that a disabled child under two requires care substantially in excess of that required by a normal child under two. I asked the Library to find out whether any research has been done on the care needed by a child with an inherited disorder or severe disability compared with a so-called normal child under two. There has been no such research. There has been research and statements on the care needed by a so-called normal child and there has been research on disabled children, but no comparison has been made. There has been no evaluation of the differences. The Government have taken refuge exclusively behind the barrier that all two-year-olds require substantial care.
I am sure that those hon. Members who are parents understand clearly the problems of lack of sleep caused by a child who is under two who does not want to sleep through the night. It may be rather like discussing matters here late at night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Much worse."] At least there is the pleasure of one's children and the knowledge that they will grow up into decent members of our society. Such satisfaction is not always the outcome of debates in the Chamber. Indeed, the Opposition have won only one vote so far, and that was in relation to the Post Office.
The basis of the Government's argument is that all children under two require the same amount of care. Therefore, we need to demonstrate that that is not the case. We do not particularly want to read out the endless horror stories of those children and their parents but we must underline the fact that caring for such a child is not the same as caring for a normal under-two-year-old.
I shall give the general outline of a letter that I received about a child born with a hereditary disease which meant that it did not have all its skin. Sufferers from that disease have varying amounts of skin on different parts of their body. Parts of their skin are very thin and are likely to break and blister. It is an extremely painful illness. Those

who have had to change nappies can imagine the problems of a child suffering from that disease when it is very young and still requires nappies.
The parents in question wrote to me about their daughter who, unfortunately, lived for only 12 weeks. She had only 30 per cent. of the normal amount of skin. She was in great pain and needed much care. Both parents stayed at home, which put an immense emotional strain on them, especially as they did so in the sure knowledge that the child would die. After eight weeks the parents simply could not cope any longer with the strain of caring for that child 24 hours a day and had to resort to having her put back into hospital care. They did not have the necessary support to relieve them from the exhaustion and deprivation that they were suffering. It seems to me that that experience is not the same as caring for a normal 12-week-old baby. There is a world of difference. The condition is medically known. It can be diagnosed and its effects are known. Age is not a problem in that case.
The work of OSCAR on sickle cell anaemia has been referred to. It is an inherited disease and the symptoms of those suffering from it are well charted. The crises of that illness are particularly acute in children of two and under and drugs have to be administered to those children throughout the night. The crises occur about every six weeks or so and last for several weeks and the child will be in extreme pain and discomfort during that period. Naturally that is reflected in its behaviour. Clearly, caring for such a child is not the same as caring for a child under two who is teething and in pain.
The Government persist in hiding behind a barrier that is totally transparent. They say that they cannot assess the difference between looking after a severely disabled child, and the impact of known inherited diseases on such children, and giving the care and support that a normal child under two requires. The conclusion that I draw from that is that they are mostly men, who have little experience of looking after children and little understanding of the constant demands placed on parents. Therefore, they can say in complete astonishment that they have never thought of the continuous help and care that a disabled child under the age of two would require. Indeed, they have never really thought about how much care a normal child under two needs.
The new clause forces the debate by asking, "Why do we need an age bar at two, which excludes families from claiming attendance allowance despite the social, economic and personal strains that caring for such a child puts on them?". Why do we need the age bar when we can assess the illness and when we can assess whether or not an attendance allowance is necessary under the legislation already? It is already difficult to qualify for such an allowance. As there is already a method of assessing diseases, and medical opinion that can forecast their progress, why do the Government persist in keeping the two-year age bar? The answer must be meanness, lack of understanding of the care of children and especially of the care that needs to be given to children who are physically or mentally disabled—who have inherited diseases, who are born with spina bifida, who suffer a stroke at birth or who have cleft palates and who need additional care, over and above the care needed by any other two-year-old.
I have attempted to clarify the purpose of the new clause. I sincerely hope that Conservative Members will now say that there is no logical or moral reason why the two-year bar should remain. I hope that they will join us


in saying that, while it is regrettable that previous Administrations, of whatever political colour, have failed to address that point, we shall put it right tonight and ensure that the parents receive at least some support, albeit not enough, in recognition of the difficulties that they face in trying to keep their families together and care for their children.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: I speak from a position of great luck because I am the father of a 20-month-old child who is healthy and normal. Frankly, the demands of my son are incessant. He needs constant watching, worrying over and caring for, because a 20-month-old son is an extraordinary phenomenon. As his father, I have had to think of 40 different ways in which a lunatic might commit suicide and then prevent him from doing so.
The Government have decided, I believe rightly, that the constant demands made on parents of any child under the age of two are never-ending. They have also admitted — as I admit — that in practice the parents of handicapped children sometimes have greater needs than the parents of normal children, and that those needs are unmet. However, it becomes much easier to assess those needs when the child is about two—as well as the extra time taken by the parents and the extra costs that they incur in meeting the needs. Inevitably, the younger the child the harder it is to assess its needs. The matter cannot be looked at in terms of black and white. It must he a question of balance, as must everything that is discussed in this Chamber.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was right: it is no argument to say that a previous Labour Government decided that the age limit of two years should be in place, and that therefore this Government must be right. As I have said, the issue is not black and white. However, there is an argument for saying that the previous Labour Government had to weigh up the various different and competing claims on resources and the various different and competing ways of targeting those resources, and that they came to the same conclusion as this Government.

9 pm

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and that he listened to some of the debates, but I remind him of a point made by the Minister— that once the age limit had been introduced at an early stage during the introduction of attendance allowance, the issue of the age limit was hardly raised and has not been considered from that time to this. It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) have said, that the matter had been considered and rejected by a Labour Government. The initial age limit has not been seriously questioned until now. It is regrettable and terrible that it has not been questioned, but that is not an argument for not questioning it now.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Although I am grateful for that intervention, the hon. Member does not appreciate that the imposition of an age limit requires a positive step. In my view, the positive step to impose that age limit was correct because of the incessant demands that are made on the parents of any two-year-old child.
It is inevitable that resources are limited and, therefore, that those resources must be targeted in one way or

another. The way in which those resources are targeted must be a matter of judgment and balance. It is not always possible for a Government to satisfy every unmet need, and it would not necessarily be right for a Government to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred to the fact that the Government are examining the whole system of attendance allowances that are paid to disabled people. It is better to examine those attendance allowances as a whole and for that to be clone in the light of the survey of disabled people which is being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and which is expected later this year. It is also better that the matter be considered in the light of the study of community care that is being performed by Sir Roy Griffiths. When attendance allowances are dealt with, it is necessary that the final conclusion reached by the House is the right conclusion.
Nobody could deny the effectiveness of the speech by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). However, because of the review that is coming this year, the decision must be the right one. It is also necessary that attendance allowances are not looked at—

Ms. Primarolo: What review is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I refer to the review that is being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Its survey of disabled people is expected later this year.

Ms. Primarolo: That is a general study of disability arid does not address specifically the question that we have raised in the new clause—the position of under-two-year olds and babies—for exactly the same reasons that the age bar exists in the first place.

Mr. Arbuthnot: That is precisely the point that I am making. It is a general study. Because the position of disabled people is a matter which must be considered as a whole, that is the more sensible way of dealing with this issue, rather than by the new clause—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Boswell: rose—

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have given way five or six times in my speech already. I would rather wind up my speech by reminding hon. Members that it is not only the attendance allowances which are available to disabled people—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I shall not give way. I have done so six times already.
It is not only attendance allowances which are available to disabled people, because the allowances are only one of a whole range of services that are also available—

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? lie said nowt for two months in Committee, so will he give way now?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Arbuthnot: There is a specific responsibility on local authorities and on health authorities to help those families which have disabled children. That help can take the form of the provision of equipment, home helps arid nursing facilities for other children in the family, among other things.
Therefore, the balance is difficult to strike—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The balance is difficult to strike, but in this case I believe that the Government's conclusion, which coincides with the last—

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he was not giving way.

Mr. Arbuthnot: It is a difficult balance to strike, but I believe that the Government's conclusion, which is the same as that arrived at by the last Labour Government, is the correct one.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mrs. Wise: While sitting through the debates on the Social Security Bill in Committee, I used to wish that Conservative Members would speak out. I believed that, once they had heard speeches such as those made by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), they would have to think the same thoughts as I was thinking. Any human being would have done so. I heartily believed that, if they would only throw off the discipline of the Whip and speak, all would be revealed.
Now, I am so shocked at the revelation of the depths of their total lack of comprehension of the problems facing so many people that I regret that they have spoken. I regret having had my illusions shattered. I would rather believe that Conservative Members were bound and gagged by the Whips than that their sensibility and understanding was so limited.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) talked about his child of 20 months needing constant attention. I have a grandchild of 16 months, who of course needs constant attention and supervision. He climbs and is apt to fall over. But there is all the difference in the world between adventureness which requires supervision, with all the joy and laughter that accompany that period of life, and the complete helplessness and sadness occasioned by severe sickness and disability described by my hon. Friends. Possibly, if there were more women Members, even Conservative Members would show more understanding, although I cannot guarantee that, given the shattering of my illusions tonight.
I am sorry that we do not have the same level of attendance in this debate as we had for the child benefit debate earlier. Many more hon. Members were willing to come and talk about the needs of normal families. I welcomed them and took part in that debate, but it is a great pity that those who do not .have such force of numbers behind them and do not wield so many votes cannot count on such a turnout. I deeply regret that.
All the arguments that have been used against the new clause tonight could be used equally well against any attendance allowance. We have heard that it is difficult reliably to assess the need. That is at least as— if not more—true of adults. Medical opinions differ about the needs of adults. Some doctors say that an attendance allowance should be given, some that it should not. We do not use that genuine difficulty as a reason for not having an attendance allowance. But when it is a matter of babies, for some reason every judgment must be perfect and the balance must be so delicately attuned that we must never take the risk of tipping it in favour of children or their parents.
I would rather some attendance allowances were given and later withdrawn because the children improved. Unfortunately, in most of these cases, death will be the only relief for the children and their parents. For this House to refuse to give any help that we can to parents of such children is diabolical and monstrous. The House of Commons should be ashamed of itself tonight if it votes against this amendment.
I can see that I shall have to follow the advice given by another hon. Member in Committee and study body language. Normally I do not interpret body language but listen to what people say. However, from the shuffles and wriggles of Conservative Members it is clear that they find some of my arguments uncomfortable. At this very minute I can see those arguments being shrugged off by those Members.
When we debated child benefit, we were told of the huge expense that would be involved in upgrading it. We were told that it would cost a lot and that it was a blunt instrument. Indeed, one Conservative Member said that that benefit was sprayed all over. However, we are now talking about something that would be finely targeted—a delicate instrument. The allowance would go to about 10,000 of those families in this country who have suffered the misfortune of all misfortunes. Now we are told that the matter is too complex and that judgments might be made that were not absolutely correct.
In Committee, the Minister — we are told he responded sensitively to the problem—said that the help given should be the right type of help. I do not think that giving an extra £31 or £32 to a family so that they can buy a bit of extra help or a bit of extra rest could possibly be the wrong help. I accept that there might be a whole list of things that should be done — some of those things may be dealt with at the moment, but inadequately—and it is right that they should be considered and voted upon. What we are being called upon to vote for tonight cannot possibly be regarded as the wrong type of help for any parent in such a position.
I have heard about the OPCS survey regarding the extent of disability and the needs of the disabled. However, the hon. Members who have mentioned that survey have no knowledge—they certainly have not shared it with us — of any specific attempts to study the problems of disabled and severely sick babies. Such babies will be lumped in with other people.
I believe that those children need extra, urgent attention. I happen to believe that, in this amendment, we are, if anything, being over modest. There will still be an age limit to qualify for the allowance. Those babies that die before the age of 12 weeks will not be covered by our amendment. Our amendment still means that those children would have to suffer for six months before they qualified. Therefore, the earliest age for benefit would be six months and it may well be that weeks would pass before it was understood that a claim could or should be made. As a result of that claim, an assessment would have to be carried out and therefore it would probably mean that few children under the age of one would get any benefit.
Even though the amendment represents a small measure, it is still infinitely worth while. I do not know how hon. Members will sleep tonight if they deprive people of this benefit for the children. I hope that when the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford goes home tonight and looks at his 20-month-old child, he will think about


the mother struggling with twins who are unable to stand up unaided and who have to have an oxygen cylinder ready. That mother has to look out for those twins ceasing to breathe. She does not have to watch to see if they fall over and graze a knee, but to check that they have not ceased to breathe. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford should look at his 20-month-old son and be thankful that he is not a candidate for the attendance allowance for which we are appealing tonight.
We hear a great deal about sympathy. It has been said that the Minister responded sensitively in Committee and that sympathy poured from him. I am prepared to believe that he genuinely feels that sympathy, but it does not help parents for one minute. They face a burden that goes on minute by minute, hour by hour, 24 hours of the day; and mothers, in particular, face that burden. We could not take it from them. They have been plagued by nature with this dreadful catastrophe. We can only try to alleviate it a little at the edges. The Minister tells us that we may not be able reliably to assess every case, so one person may receive the allowance and another person may not, when they should both receive it.
Words do not often fail me, as my hon. Friends know. I cannot understand how hon. Members, having had these matters brought to their attention, can then throw the argument back. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said. The Labour Government did not reject any such proposal. The matter was never considered during the 1970s.

Mr. Simon Burns: Before you get carried away with self-righteous indignation, what did you do

Mr. Speaker: Order. No "yous".

Mr. Burns: I was wondering what the last Labour Government did from 1975 to 1979 to consider this matter and what the Labour party has done while out of office, if it feels so strongly about the matter.

Mrs. Wise: The Labour Government were doing a few useful things, such as introducing mobility allowance and non-contributory invalidity benefit. Many of us were helping them with that.
We did not know that there are 10,000 families in this position. They did not bring the problem to us. Presumably no Conservative Members knew about the problem when they were on the Opposition Benches, because they did not raise the matter. Nobody raised the matter. None of my constituents brought it to my attention. As the problem affects such a small minority of children, it is not surprising. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), I thought that all babies needed a lot of care, and that therefore the problem did not arise. However, we are aware of the problem now because we have been told about it by the people who suffer, so none of us has any excuse.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I raised this point in Committee on 17 November. I have worked for the Health Service for many years and have nursed such children. A change occurred in the care of these children. I asked the Minister how many beds had gone out of the National Health Service during those years. He gave me an answer which ran into thousands, so there are different trends. The Labour Government did not recognise the problem, but, although there is no excuse for that, there was a

different method of caring for children. We cared for children with severe handicaps in hospital. That trend has changed and that is a good argument for bringing forward this amendment.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is quite right. I take the expression "righteous indignation", which tripped off the lips of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, not as a term of abuse, but as a compliment. Anybody who does not feel righteous indignation at the thought that this amendment might be rejected is deficient in humanity, and as a politician and human being. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents were aware of the facts, they would feel that too. I call on all hon. Members with a grain of humanity and a grain of common sense to acknowledge that there is no financial or moral justification for rejecting this amendment.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has listened carefully to the debate here and in Committee. It is interesting to note that the interventions from one or two Conservative Members, who sat silently in Committee, should be so derogatory. The only Conservative Member to speak in the debate tonight who has met one of these families—the Storer family — is the hon. Member for Nuneaton (M r. Stevens). He has been the only Tory Member to say that, unless the Minister gives an assurance that there will be some progress, he may support the Opposition. None of the Tory Members who have spoken this evening have gone to the 30 or 40 families in their constituency and asked the parents how they are coping. They are all speaking out of the back of their heads.

Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. I join the call for all hon. Members to vote for the amendment. There is little enough we can do. It would be shameful to refuse to do what little we can.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: 1 should like to pay tribute to the members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, because the House has seen the kind of emotional tirade from the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) that they have had to put up with day in and day out. We have had an emotional tirade time after time, when I would have thought the purpose of the Committee and the House was to consider dispassionately, but with heartfelt attention, the cases of fellow citizens such as those we have heard about tonight.
Let us remember the background to the introduction of the attendance allowance that we are extending to the parents of children under the age of two. That allowance was introduced by a Conservative Government, who paid heed to the needs which were evident in those days, before the magnificent advances in medical science of recent years, when it was extremely difficult to distinguish between those youngsters who had a serious disability that would qualify for the attendance allowance and normal children. That was the reason the Conservative Government introduced the two-year limit, and presumably that was the reason why the succeeding Labour Government—of whom the hon. Member for Preston, the then Member for Coventry, South-West, was a part —did not raise the two-year limit, let alone change it. It is being considered now.
In those days the number of cases of such youngsters was minimal, but thanks to advances in technology and


medical science, more children are surviving the weird and terrible conditions that afflict them, and they are the serious cases which hon. Members have quite rightly raised. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and other hon. Members have referred to cases which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we should turn our attention to the thousands of children in this condition, because they are worthy of our support.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I ask my hon. Friend to consider the case of handicapped children in care who require fostering or adoption, because it is generally easier to find parents to adopt or foster younger children than older children. This bears out the argument that the need for care of young children is not as great as it is for older children. When funds are short, surely it is more important to provide funds to look after older children, about whom there is more concern and who cause more worry to parents, than to provide funds for younger children who do not require as much care.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. It is all very well for Labour Members to bring in an amendment and make heart-rending speeches in an attempt to overcome in a superficial way what is a very real problem. I would rather that the Minister gave an undertaking that he will consider the problem and will bring together county council social services departments and local district health authorities to consider the problem of providing adequate support and relief for parents of disabled children under the age of two.

Mr. Scott: It is not surprising, in discussing a subject that has so many emotional overtones, that strong feelings have been displayed this evening. We spent 10¼ hours in Committee in three long debates on attendance allowance. I know that all members of the Committee treated it with great seriousness and concern.
Tonight, we return to the matter. Before I get into the main argument that I wish to put, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that he had a question answered today about the statistics and costs of the matter. I hoped that he would receive it before this debate, and I am sorry if he has not yet done so. I shall give the substance of the answer now, and it will be of some interest to the House.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in an answer given to him on 30 November 1987, we said that the advice we had was that an estimated 3,900 children currently become eligible at the age of two. Of those, 2,300 were at the higher rate and 1,600 were at the lower rate. Assuming that all those would start at the age of six months, no attempt was made to allow for awards running for only part of the financial year. The resulting estimate of a £17 million extra annual cost included £7·5 million for invalid care allowance and £0·5 million for income support child disablement premium. I emphasise that both of the estimates I am giving to the House now assume the continued application of the six-month qualifying period, that is to say, that no award would start before six months, and that is the basis of the assumption.
We have been able to revise our estimates in the light of expert medical advice about children with severe disabilities from birth, who require attention substantially in excess of normal. We also take into account disabilities

that come to light subsequently, particularly during the second year of life. We estimate that there may be up to 3,000 under-twos who would qualify. They would probably divide fairly equally between the higher and lower rate allowance. Taking account of dispersal throughout the year of children coming into benefit on reaching the age of two, when they cease to be an extra cost, we estimate an extra annual cost of about £7 million. That takes account of £3·1 million for invalid care allowance and income support disablement premium of £200,000.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister used a telling phrase in his explanation, which I am sure will be most helpful to the House. He spoke of children with needs that were "substantially in excess of normal". Is that not what the debate in Committee has been about, the inability to say whether such a group exists? If it does exist and it is possible to quantify it at 3,000, surely that is abundant evidence that the point behind the amendment should be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I wanted to clear up that point for the House, and particularly for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, who I anticipate will have had the answer in advance of this debate.
Another point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his speech concerned entitlement to an orange badge, flowing from the attendance allowance. Technically speaking, it flows from mobility allowance, although I know that some local authorities operate the scheme on the basis that once a child reaches the age of two it is entitled to allowance and then the parents or other carers are entitled to an orange badge.

Mr. Nellist: If we are unsuccessful this evening in convincing sufficient Conservative Members to support us on new clause 2, and in arranging for all under-twos to have attendance allowance, what can the Minister offer us now from the Dispatch Box on this small point about the passport to an orange badge? Will discretion be allowed so that local authorities can issue badges to the parents of under-twos, where need is identified, even where a child is not two years old and cannot qualify for attendance allowance, or is not five years old and cannot qualify for mobility allowance? Will the Minister offer at least that concession before we come to the meat of the new clause?

Mr. Scott: I shall leave that to the end of my reply. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on any other matters, I shall be happy to give way, but we have had the debate in Committee. As I say, it was a long and serious debate and obviously a great deal of emotion underlay many of the contributions. As I promised in Committee, I have thought long and hard about the proposal that attendance allowance should be available for children under the age of two. I knew that this would be raised again on Report. I also believe that there was intrinsic importance about the discussion.
Many points made in Committee caused my hon. Friend and myself to think seriously about the matter. So I went back to the Department because of the challenges put to me and asked for additional expert medical advice on the medical issues. As a result, I have a clearer idea of some aspects of the argument that perhaps I did not have in Committee. A lot of this depends on medical advice.
Lest I am arousing expectations that I shall not be able to fulfil when I conclude, I still believe for the moment that it would he wrong to include the proposal in the Bill at this time, but I hope to say something more constructive before I finish.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Preston reached perhaps hysterical points but I understand the strength of her feeling. At one time she seemed to be talking as though attendance allowance was the only help available for parents with disabled children. Of course, a range of help is provided by the social services departments, health authorities and voluntary organisations for such families.

Mrs. Wise: Does not that also apply to adults who receive attendance allowance? Do they not also qualify for other allowances?

Mr. Scott: They may indeed. But listening to the hon. Lady one could have been persuaded that families who had the appalling misfortune to have a severely disabled child, with all the emotional and physical stress that that obviously puts on parents and other members of the family, were left helpless because they were not entitled to attendance allowance. The point I am making is that that is not true. Whatever the arguments may be for or against giving attendance allowance to disabled youngsters, the fact is that there is a range of help available to those families. It is right that we should remind ourselves of that.

Mr. Bill Michie: The Minister has mentioned the range of help available through local authorities and social services. But many local authorities, such as Sheffield, are rate-capped and the pressure put on social services is far too great. Rate-capping makes the position worse, so the Minister cannot say that someone else should take care of the problem.

Mr. Scott: On the other hand, the allocation for personal social services which has been agreed for the coming year, although not what local authorities might have wished but nevertheless generous, is certainly of a sufficient size for them to be able to agree to implement sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 whose author, as it were, is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Extra resources have been provided to social services and local authorities. It is not possible for Government to dictate to local authorities how they should spend the allocation. But certainly this range of services is provided by the vast majority of local authorities in this country.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Despite earlier temptations, I had not intended to intervene because I think that this is a crucial discussion and I did not want to take away from the main focus of what seems to me to be a vital debate. But I am sure that the Minister did not wish to give the impression to the House that the whole of the 1986 Act had been implemented or that any one of the local authority associations is satisfied with progress so far. Can he clarify that point?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have realised that I referred to sections 5 and 6 and said that we had enabled them to be implemented with the resources that we have made available for the coming year. We have said that the implementation of the rest of the Act will depend on the resources we are able to make

available in future. It is the clear intention that, as resources become available, we shall ensure that the whole of the Act is implemented.
The main point that I am trying to make at the moment is that families which have this appalling experience are not left helpless. Local authorities have a responsibility to assess the needs of all families with children and to ensure that those needs are met. Health authorities have a responsibility to provide health services for all children, including those with special needs, and voluntary organisations provide health services which add to the volume of statutory services and widen the range and variety of response to people's needs.
I know very well, and I recognised this in Committee, how the parents of handicapped babies find their practical burdens increased by the emotional strain of coming to terms with the handicap. I believe that it is vitally important that parents receive the right support and counselling to help them with this emotional strain. Many parents who find themselves in this situation speak very highly of the help which they are given by health authorities, hospitals, local authorities and voluntary organisations, many of which work on a self-help basis, and this helps families which find themselves in this situation to cope with both the practical burdens and the emotional strains involved.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister will recall that in Committee I went into some detail about the fact that not only is there a need for these services but, over and above that, there is a real additional cost to the parents of disabled children and that cost is there from the very beginning. Will he address himself to that aspect?

Mr. Scott: There are, of course, voluntary organisations that are able to help with that sort of thing, but I will recome to the point about attendance allowance in a moment. I just want to register the point that families in this situation have a range of help from a variety of sources —from the health services, local authorities, domiciliary services, and so on.

Mr. Thurnham: I did not have the advantage of being on the Committee at an earlier stage, but I have heard a figure this evening of 10,000 Families, and the Minister has just quoted a figure of 3,000 families. My own research in Bolton would suggest that about 10 families each year have a severely handicapped child born to them, which would suggest that for the country as a whole there might be between 2,000 and 3,000 each year. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify the numbers.

Mr. Scott: The figure will, of course, be in the Official Report tomorrow as a result of the answer I have given to the hon.Member for Coventry, South-East. It comes out at up to 3,000 children, assessing the total cost, bearing in mind that they come on for part of the year, and so on, at some £7 million. That includes both the ICA and the child disablement premium.
I think that it is generally accepted that attendance allowance should be paid only in respect of those disabled children whose attendance needs exceed those of normal children of the same age. Giving statutory expression to that principle was one of the main purposes of the regulations which were made in 1971 at the outset of the attendance allowance scheme under the power which is


now contained in the 1975 Act. The age two threshold which this clause seeks to remove has similarly been enshrined in regulations since 1971.
I am not making a party political point at all because there are people on both sides of the House who are concerned about this sort of issue.
Given that this is enshrined in regulations—it is not in primary legislation, so people who wished to raise the matter or to have a debate need not have waited for an opportunity arising from primary legislation — I am surprised, I am even surprised at myself, that none of us spotted this and that it has not been raised earlier. But there has been no concerted pressure at all to amend this particular regulation before now. That is not to say that the Committee and the House are not entitled to use the opportunity of this Bill to bring the matter to public attention. I think I may have used a phrase—whether it was a wise one or not—about exploiting the fact that we had a Bill in order to raise this particular matter, but I did not use it in any pejorative sense. I understand why the Opposition, when we have a Bill of this sort, seize on a matter, bring it forward and have it discussed on its merits—merits which have changed over the years, not least because of the improvements in medical science and medical technology which have enabled many youngsters born with severe disability to survive, babies who would not have survived in the early years of attendance allowance.
We can all understand the original rationale of the lower age limit. It was that healthy babies and infants required a lot of attention anyway and so it would be very difficult in practice to identify any substantial extra need for attention arising from disability. The age of two was chosen as the threshold because the important milestones of normal development occurring by the end of the second year meant that by that age any significant divergence from the pattern of increasing independence would have become apparent. But times change, and we must recognise that. Although this rationale remains true for many children who may grow up disabled, it has been overtaken by developments affecting other children. In particular, the continuing advances in medical and nursing care of babies with severe congenital abnormalities and birth trauma mean that more survive and are discharged into the care of their parents in the first year of life.
The advice that I have received confirms that, as hon. Members argued in Committee, these babies have attendance needs which exceed those of a normal child. That is not to say that it is as easy to assess the needs of a baby as it is to assess those of a child over the age of two; there are still substantial difficulties involved in such a judgment. But it is clear that there is a group whose disabilities and needs it is possible to assess before the age of two. Perhaps it is because the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) recognised that this did not require primary legislation that he asked me in Committee to undertake a specific review of it and to
consider the issue in its own right at the appropriate time".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 19 November 1987; c. 82.]
The recent medical advice that we have received and the conclusion from it that I have reported are obviously an important aspect but I do not think that they can be the absolute answer to the issue in this new clause before us

today. With the very substantial extension of invalid care allowance that we have seen, particularly since married women became eligible, we would have to consider the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance in the context of any extension to those below the age of two. Because it is intended as income maintenance for those who forgo the opportunity of employment to look after a disabled person, we would need to examine the merits of paying it to one parent, usually the mother, of a child when that parent might very well have given up work in any case.
In essence, if we are to consider the extension of attendance allowance to youngsters under the age of two who have needs substantially in excess of those of a normal child, it is right to look at the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance, perhaps throughout childhood, and see what an appropriate pattern for that might be. We must look at those above the age of two as well as those below it to ensure that we have equitable and sensible arrangements for this sort of cash assistance to disabled children and their parents.
9.45 pm
I have a reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East about local authorities and the orange badge scheme. Local authorities already have discretion to issue orange badges to disabled people who are not covered by the automatic entitlement criteria. I understand that my colleagues in the Department of Transport who are responsible for the scheme are conducting a review of it, and have sought comments and representations from responsible organisations. I am sure that they would welcome any representations by hon. Members about the operation of the scheme. Some authorities, I believe, operate the scheme, although some choose the mobility allowance and some go below the age to two. I see that I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Caernarfon.
I mention the kind of issues that I think that it would be right for us to consider if we reviewed cash support for disabled children and their parents within the fairly narrow context of the existing benefits of attendance and invalid care allowances. I do not intend to speculate about what answers we might come up with if we engaged in that exercise, but, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned, such narrow questions are about to be overtaken by the wider scrutiny of attendance allowances, along with other disability benefits, that will shortly be made possible by the results of the OPCS survey of disabled people and Sir Roy Griffiths' study of community care. They may well point to significant changes in the form of cash and other support for disabled people, including children and their parents, and we shall want to examine their reports with a great deal of care. Sir Roy Griffiths' report, due very soon, and the OPCS results later this year, will provide the material for a wider and better-informed debate about all these matters.
If the hon. Lady is not willing to withdraw the new clause, I ask the House to reject it, but against the background of a recognition that support for the families of disabled children throughout the age range will now inescapably be part of the system.

Mrs. Beckett: The tone of the Minister's reply was such that I feel confident that many hon. Members who have not followed the progress of the debate will believe that he


must have made some concession. I congratulate him on managing not to make such a concession while sounding as though he had.
I accept that the Minister has now gone as far as saying that, in the context of the Griffiths report on community care and the OPCS survey of disability in all their aspects, the Government will look seriously at the position of disabled children. I shall do the Minister the justice of acknowledging that I have little doubt that he and, probably, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have been seriously dismayed by the observations and cases put to them in Committee, and will take the opportunity of those reviews to do what they can. Nevertheless, we have no firm date for either of those reviews; certainly the general survey of disability has been awaited for a considerable time. With some regret, I must say that it seems to me that all the Minister is saying is that at some time in the future —perhaps this year, perhaps next year or perhaps the year after—when the general survey of the needs of the disabled is made, he will look at such cases and perhaps act.
At least we have heard from the Minister something that we did not hear from his hon. Friends whose views we did not have the benefit of hearing in Committee—although the members of the Committee who have spoken tonight were, I concede, present for most of the debate, which cannot be said for all Conservative Members. At least the Minister expressed an understanding that the debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House have been serious and thoughtful debates, dealing with serious and important issues of causing tremendous anxiety to the parents of children who are, by definition, very severely disabled, whether physically or mentally.
At least in that respect, the contribution from the Government Front Bench is distinguished from that made by the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and indeed the comments made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) whom I am not sure is in the Chamber any longer, so disgusted was he by the tone of the debate. Forgive me: how could I forget the contribution made by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)? He referred to what Conservative Members had to put up with in Committee. Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not like to listen to the problems of those who have to cope with severely mentally and physically handicapped children. My sympathy for him is considerably tempered by the recollection of the much greater problems faced by those who have to cope with those difficulties.
From the comments made by those hon. Members, it appeared that they were trying to find excuses to explain why they were unable to vote with the Opposition tonight. I suspect that they were doing that because, against their will, they were much impressed by the arguments in Committee and on the Floor of the House on this issue. The hon. Member for Daventry differed from his hon. Friends in that he did not acknowledge that there had been a serious and thoughtful debate on this point. Instead, he made some silly and unjustified comments about the tone of the debate. He spoke about the other commitments which have been discussed. They were paltry and pathetic reasons for refusing to support a new clause that will extend the right to attendance allowance to children who now meet all qualifications for the award of that allowance other than the fact that they have not passed the age of two.
Comments were made from the Conservative Benches about superficial remarks and about hon. Members becoming too emotional about these matters. I do not know what we should get emotional about if it is not the sufferings and problems of children in those circumstances. It is outrageous for Conservative Members to suggest that, although of course they sympathise, owing to the tone of the debate they are unable to put that sympathy into action and vote in the Lobby in support of the new clause.

Mr. Nellist: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in case I pre-empt remarks that she is about to make. However, as the Chamber is fuller now I want to explain that my hon. Friend is referring to complaints made by Tory Members about the debate in Committee. Will she allow me, through her, to explain that we had more than 10 hours of debate in Committee and we have had more than two hours of debate tonight on this matter? Tempers on both sides of the House have rightly, in my view, risen high. We have heard from the Minister tonight that what we have argued about for nearly 13 hours concerns 3,000 children at a total allowance cost of £7 million. That is less than 20 per cent. of the cost of the crystal chandeliers and other adornments in the new DHSS headquarters in Whitehall. All that debate involved 3,000 children. That might open Tory Members' eyes and they might understand why we have been pushing the Minister. We cannot get the movement to help those 3,000 kids.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to him, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for the way in which they have brought this issue to the attention of the House by raising constituency cases.
I want to consider the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. In a sense, he encapsulated the problem. He said that there is little doubt that in the case that has been brought to his attention in his constituency the children satisfy every criteria for the award of attendance allowance except the fact that it cannot be paid below the age of two. He spoke about the intention of the new clause being correct and he hoped that the Minister would be able to give him some words of support about the problems that prevented him from accepting the new clause or giving effect to it in other ways.
In Committee we sought to give effect to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. We asked the Minister to give the assurance that a review on this point would be undertaken and that, if our proposals were not exactly the right way to proceed, whether he would make other proposals. All that he has told us is that we will have to await the results of the review into the disabled, which may take several years.
The hon. Gentleman asked what reason the Government could give for not being able to agree with at least the principle of the new clause this evening. Again, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in Committee the Minister said that it is somewhat difficult in some cases to get the test exactly right and it
would create considerable difficulties for the attendance allowance board.
I have considerable respect and sympathy for the attendance allowance board, which has a difficult job to do, but my sympathy and respect for the board is far


outweighed by my sympathy and respect for people such as the parents who are his constituents who are having to struggle to look after severely disabled children and who are being told that they cannot have the allowance because it might be difficult for the board.
My sympathy disappears when I look again at what the Minister said in Committee. He said:
it is possible in some cases to identify the need for the allowance before age two … under the age of 18 months … I do not dispute the fact that some children can be identified and assessed … The allowance must be paid at a point when attendance needs can be clearly discerned to be in excess of those required by non-disabled children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1987; c. 64–5.]
But it is not so paid. It is not paid until the children reach the age of two, no matter how terrible their problems, no matter how great their difficulties and no matter how horrendous the struggles of their parents.
Some Conservative Members have spoken with amusement, sneering even, about the emotions that have been aroused on the Labour Benches by the issues raised by the new clause. I am proud of the fact that such emotions have been raised. It was unworthy of the Minister to suggest that the real anger and outrage expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was hysterical.
It would be no wonder if someone was driven to hysteria watching the antics of some Conservative Members this evening. This is an issue of real seriousness and importance for the families involved. It is one on which the Minister has not, no matter how much he sought to convey his sympathy, been able to tell us that he will be able to move and the Opposition have no hesitation in seeking to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 310.

Division No. 129]
[9.56 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashdown, Paddy
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clay, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beggs, Roy
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tarn


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alastair


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Doran, Frank


Buckley, George
Douglas, Dick





Dunnachie, James
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Faulds, Andrew
Maxton, John


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morley, Elliott


Galbraith, Samuel
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Nellist, Dave


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Ms Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles


Heffer, Eric S.
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Redmond, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Holland, Stuart
Reid, John


Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hood, James
Robertson, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley hi)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley Si
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hume, John
Sheerman, Barry


Illsley, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerald


Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Lewis, Terry
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Litherland, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Livingstone, Ken
Turner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Vaz, Keith


Loyden, Eddie
Wall, Pat


MacAllion, John
Wallace, James


MacAvoy, Tom
Walley, Ms Joan


MacCartney, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


MacCusker, Harold
Wareing, Robert N.


Macdonald, Calum
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


MacFall, John
Wigley, Dafydd


MacGrady, E. K.
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


MacKelvey, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


MacLeish, Henry
Wilson, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McTaggart, Bob
Wise, Mrs Audrey






Worthington, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, James
Mr. Frank Cook and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Amos, Alan
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkinson, David
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Favell, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle ol Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fry, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, George


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gregory, Conal


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Grist, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves. Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Irving, Charles


Davies, Q, (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Janman, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)





Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Redwood, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)
Renton, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Riddick, Graham


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Squire, Robin


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood,1


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Send E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Miller, Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, lain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mudd, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Woodcock, Mike


Raffan, Keith
Yeo, Tim






young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly negatived

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, unit any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Bill, as amended, again considered.

New Clause 4

UPRATING OF CHILD BENEFIT

'In paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 leave out:—
(c) or (d) above" and insert:—
(c),(d) or, in any Order having effect on or after 10th April 1989, (f), (child benefit), abouve.".'—[Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 288.

Division No. 130]
[10.10 pn


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Critchley, Julian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, Stan


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashdown, Paddy
Cummings, J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tarn


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alastair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beggs, Roy
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp;amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Douglas, Dick


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnachie, James


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Dykes, Hugh


Boateng, Paul
Eadie, Alexander


Bowis, John
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fearn, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buckley, George
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Clay, Bob
Galbraith, Samuel


Clelland, David
Galloway, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cohen, Harry
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Corbett, Robin
Godman, Dr Norman A.





Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliott


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Nellist, Dave


Haynes, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Brien, William


Heffer, Eric S
O'Neill, Martin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patchert, Terry


Hinchhffe, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, N (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Holland, Stuart
Pike, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, James
Prescott, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Howell, Rt Hon D (S'heath)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hume, John
Reid, John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


John, Brynmor
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rowe, Andrew


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Salmond, Alex


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C  (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J  (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Squire, Robin


McAlhon, John
Steinberg, Gerald


McAvoy, Tom
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Ian
Strang, Gavin


McCrindle, Robert
Straw, Jack


McCusker, Harold
Taylor Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Rt Hon J  D (S'ford)


McFall, John
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


McGrady, E  K
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Townsend, Cyril D  (B'heath)


McKelvey, William
Turner Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


McNamara, Kevin
Wall, Pat


McTaggart  Bob
Wallace, James


McWilham, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Madden, Max
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wareing, Robert N


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marlow, Tony
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon A J


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W (Carm'then)


Martin  Michael (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Anthony


Meale, Alan
Wray, James


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Ayes


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
and Mr Jim Lester


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)







NOES


Adley, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Alexander, Richard
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Favell, Tony


Amos, Alan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Baling N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, John
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Curry David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q, (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Ian


Dickens, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durart, Tony
Lightbown, David


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Peter





Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maclean, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Major, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speller, Tony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Miller, Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, lain
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Raffan, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, John
Wilshire, David


Renton, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Woodcock, Mike


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

INCOME SUPPORT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

`At end of Section 21 (1) ( b ) of the Social Security Act 1986 there shall be inserted the words "and ( c ) if he is over the age of 18 and below pensionable age he shall not be paid a lower rate of benefit due to his age.".'.—[Mr. Fearn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fearn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with income support for young people. The intention is to remove the distinction between claimants for income support who are over and under the age of 25. From April 1988, single childless people between the ages of 18 and 24 who are entitled to claim for income support will receive £2605, while those aged 25 and over will receive £6 more. We are completely opposed to this distinction, as it is completely arbitrary. Why, for example, should a person aged 241 have fewer expenses and financial needs than someone six months older?
The Government perhaps believe that a person aged under rather than over 25 may be able to depend on parents. Forcing young people to depend on their parents is a recent trend in legislation and is a feature of clause 4 of the Social Security Bill. We should be encouraging young people to take full responsibility for their own lives.
The Liberal party is running an excellent campaign called "Youth Chance" which is designed to help young people take full advantage of their rights so that they can be more independent. In my constituency of Southport, young people certainly fight for their rights themselves, and I hope that they will continue to do so. The Government, by contrast, are helping to create an atmosphere of dependence around young people from which they will find it difficult to escape. That is totally against the Government's avowed aim to encourage independence among all people, and I am perplexed by this contradiction between the Government's aims and their actions.
The age limit of 25 used for income support is not a widely recognised age limit in the sense that 16, 18 and 21 years are commonly recognised ages that mark changes in a person's status. We now assume that once young people reach the age of 18 they are responsible adults and are expected to behave as such. This new age limit attacks that principle.
Similarly, the age limit of 25 years is not widely employed elsewhere in British legislation, so it is difficult to understand why it has been introduced for income support; unless, of course, it is merely a means by which the Government can save themselves a small amount of money. The amounts that will be saved are not great and the hardship and bitterness that this arbitrary age limit will cause cannot justify such a saving. I urge the Government to reflect on this very unfair distinction and to accept my amendment, which will prevent this injustice. I intend to take the matter to a Division.

Mr. Robin Cook: I remind the House that on many previous occasions the official Opposition have supported the principle advanced on this occasion by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). If he divides the House we shall be happy to divide with him. I do not think that at this late hour there is an argument of sufficient originality and novelty for the principle, which I could advance to the House, to change the minds of those who have already made up their minds. But I believe that the Government, in creating a quite new distinction between a full adult rate and a less than adult rate for those younger than 25, have introduced a new distinction into our social security system that is insupportable and cannot survive indefinitely.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): There are three things that we are not discussing tonight. One is the position of 16 and 17-year-olds. There has always been a lower rate of benefit for them under supplementary benefit, and the lower rate continues under income support. I do not think that is in dispute between us.
The second thing that we are not discussing is the position of couples because there will be no distinction in income support between what couples receive, whether above or below the age of 25. The third thing that we are not discussing is the position of parents because single parents will be paid the lone parent rate of income support, which is £33.40. On top of that they will receive the family premium, plus the single parent premium, plus the addition for the child.
The point that is at issue between us is the position of the single unemployed under the age of 25. Our movement away from the distinction of householder to a distinction on age grounds is dictated because we think this is a welcome simplification. All that is needed now to establish the entitlement of a claimant is one piece of information, the date of birth of the claimant. It avoids all the difficult points of definition that arise on householders and non-householders, let alone all the difficulties that arise if we try to divide benefits between people who are living together, sharing a house or a flat. As I have mentioned, there is a precedent for a division on age grounds in supplementary benefit, although I agree with the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that that division was not at age 25. There may not be a precedent for that age, but I will tell him in a moment why we think 25 is the right age for the division.
Most young people expect to receive less when they are young than do others who are longer in the tooth, or than they themselves will receive later in life. That would be their general position if they were in work. I do not think it is such a far-reaching idea that people who are young should be expected to live off a lesser amount of money than people who are a little older. We have not taken that principle to its logical conclusion because we are protecting families of whatever age by treating couples, whether below or above the age of 18, equally by giving the special rate to single parents.
We chose the age of 25 because there is fairly good evidence for that being an important age in the life style of young people. In fact, 90 per cent. of claimants over the age of 25 are householders. On the other hand, only one in five single claimants under the age of 25 is a householder. As a result of the reforms, given those figures, of the 810,000 single claimants between the ages of 16 and 24, 450,000 will gain and 200,000 will experience no change.
Young single claimants will receive rates compensation of £1 in income support even though, as will be clear to the House, the majority of them will not be liable to pay rates. The amount that we will pay in income support of £26·05 compares with the non-householder rate of supplementary benefit of £24·35.
The most important extra cost that a person might face if he was a householder is the housing cost. That is met by a different benefit, housing benefit. Under the reformed system, the starting point for the payment of rent under the income support scheme is 100 per cent. of that rent


payment. We believe strongly that housing benefit is the correct way to address the extra housing cost that a householder might have to face.
I think this is a welcome simplification. It represents a considerable improvement in the system. I believe, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, that there is every logic to support the age of 25. I commend that approach to the House. I have to advise the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 297.

Division No. 131]
[10.34 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Ashdown, Paddy
Galbraith, Samuel


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Haynes, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blair, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Blunkett, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, James


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buchan, Norman
Illsley, Eric


Buckley, George
Ingram, Adam


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clay, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Tom


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum


Crowther, Stan
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr John
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Madden, Max


Darling, Alastair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eadie, Alexander
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliott


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris





Murphy, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Nellist, Dave
Steinberg, Gerald


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Gavin


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Pike, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Anthony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, James


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and


Soley, Clive
and Mr. Ronnie Fearn.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, Mr


Amess, David
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Amos, Alan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Cope, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dicks, Terry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dover, Den


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bottom ley, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Franks, Cecil


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Freeman, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
French, Douglas


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, George


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Butcher, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gow, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond


Cash, William
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Grist, Ian
Lord, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
McCrindle, Robert


Hampson, Dr Keith
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hanley, Jeremy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Maclean, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Harris, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Hawkins, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hayes, Jerry
Madel, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Major, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Malins, Humfrey


Heddle, John
Maples, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marland, Paul


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Marlow, Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Holt, Richard
Mates, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Howard, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mellor, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Miller, Hal


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mills, lain


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Irvine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Jack, Michael
Moate, Roger


Jackson, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Janman, Timothy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Moss, Malcolm


Key, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Mudd, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Neale, Gerrard


Knapman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Neubert, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Knox, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lang, Ian
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Latham, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lawrence, Ivan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lee, John (Pendle)
Page, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Paice, James


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Patnick, Irvine


Lightbown, David
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Lilley, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey





Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Portillo, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil


Redwood, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Speller, Tony
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Mike


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Tapsell, Sir Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the adjourned.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing further considered tomorrow.

Industrial Training

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
The order requires parliamentary approval under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1982, because one part of it — that covering labour-only subcontractors—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The levy proposals are in the same format as those approved by both Houses in January 1987, and show only one change from those arrangements. The board forecasts that the levy proposals will raise about £48 million.
The levy is made up of three parts. First, there will be an occupational levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. A set amount will be raised for each occupation, but that is subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of employers' wage bills. The rates vary according to the type of craftsman trained, and reflect the training costs of each craft. It is here that one change has been made from last year's levy proposals. The per capita levy rate for the principal building crafts has been reduced from £75 to £70. This has been made possible by a slightly lower than anticipated take-up of Construction Industry Training Board grants in that sector in the current year. Apart from that reduction, there are no changes in this year's levy proposals.
Secondly, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made by firms in the main industry for work done by labour-only sub-contractors. That rate has remained unchanged since 1981, and reflects the board's judgment that labour-only sub-contractors in general undertake too little training, relying instead on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers. For the main industry, covered by these two levy rates, companies with payrolls of £15,000 or less will not be required to pay levy. That will exclude from levy about 51 per cent. of all construction firms within the board's scope.
Thirdly, for the smaller brick manufacturing sector, the board proposes a rate of 0.05 per cent. of payroll. Employers with a wage bill of £100,000 a year or less will be excluded from the levy. That, too, is unchanged from last year.
The levy proposals have been approved by the board, and are strongly supported by the employers' organisations in the industry. In fact, as the proposals make no provision for exemption, and as some employers will be paying levy amounting to more than 0.2 per cent. of payroll, the board is required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 to demonstrate a double consensus of support for its proposals — first, among employer organisations representing all firms, large and small, which will pay the levy; and, second, among organisations representing firms that between them will pay more than 50 per cent. of the total levy. The fact that the board's proposals command that level of support, and have done so every year since the need for consensus was introduced in 1973, demonstrates the strong support in the industry for the board's work.
The levy proposals have been agreed by broad consensus among building employers, adopted by the

board without opposition and approved by the Manpower Services Commission. They are necessary for the board to continue with its work of developing and improving training arrangements in the construction industry, and I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: While the Opposition support the order and congratulate the CITB on its work and the challenges that it has met over the past years, and, indeed, over the past year, and although the hour is late, I want to take the Minister to task briefly for not acknowledging tonight that there is a real crisis in the construction industry. There is a crisis in training for the construction industry as a whole. While the Minister is right to state that the Construction Industry Training Board conforms to a model that we would have liked to see in far broader terms for most of British industry, we still lament and regret the fact that the Government abolished all but six of the industrial training boards.
This evening I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Construction Industry Training. Board is exactly the system that we admire: it is a statutory board, it has a levy and in many senses it is a very successful industrial training board. It is the model that we would like to see in the rest of British industry. While we admire the CITB and believe that much that it does is of great worth, there is something of a conundrum.
We warned the Government this time last year that there would be a crisis in training for the construction industry. Although there is an industrial training board and a consensus between employers and employees — and we cannot leave out the employees and the very positive approach that the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians takes on all training matters —there is also tremendous evidence of skill shortages throughout the country, especially in the south-east, south-west and London. Those shortages of trained and skilled people in the construction industry have been caused by the reluctance to train over the past 10 years. While there is a levy and the industrial training board performs some of the job, there are other facets of Government policy that have undermined training in the construction industry, and it is important that I put them before the House briefly this evening.
The crisis facing the construction industry is very grave. It affects all the attempts to build major public and private projects and may endanger some of the projects that the Government hold dear and which they want to see reach fruition over the next two or three years during the Government's lifetime. However, the failure to train adequately in the construction industry will also frustrate any ambition to build publicly or privately provided homes for the homeless or to renovate and repair much of Britain's crumbling housing stock.
I hope that the House will indulge me when I ask, what are the reasons for the crisis and what can the CITB and the levy do about it? The present situation is largely of the Government's making. The crisis has been a long time coming. The Opposition warned the Government last year that there was a crisis and we warned them in the years before that. We told the Government that, if they did not take training seriously, particularly in crucial industries such as the construction industry which must lead in any


economic regeneration, when any growth came it would be short indeed because it would run up against a shortage of skilled workers.
Half the problem is the construction industry's inability to reproduce the skills available to the industry. The CITB sometimes puts out figures that show a rough balance between the number of workers coming into the industry and the construction work going on, but if one looks beyond the statistics, one sees a disturbing picture. There are half the number of apprentices in training—half the number of skilled men and women coming into the industry—that there were 10 years ago.
There has been a dramatic decline in the industry's activity over that period, which coincides with the election of the Conservative Government in 1979. Now, the rate of building is back up to what it was in the mid and late 1970s, yet there is a great decrease in the amount of training. The reason for that is a serious question, which was partly answered in the Minister's brief introduction to the order this evening. It is due to the high level of exemption in the industry.
Let me give some evidence. An increasing portion of the industry is out of scope, due to the exemptions of small employers who make up an increasing share of the industry and due to the growth of labour-only subcontractors being granted what are called 714 certificates. Despite the increasing activity of the CITB, that greater level of exemption means that less training is being done, even when the labour-only sector is levied at a rate of 2 per cent. That does not make up sufficiently for the failure of a large part of the industry to train.
Let me give some figures. The Minister will be aware that, in 1979, 30 per cent. of the construction industry was accounted for by one-person firms. Within six years, that shot up to 40 per cent. At the other end of the scale, in 1979, 20 per cent. of firms had between eight and 24 employees. In 1985, that had fallen to 10 per cent. of firms employing between eight and 24 employees. At the top level, in 1979, 6.7 per cent. of firms were the large companies that most people know, employing over 25 employees. By 1985 that had fallen to 4.5 per cent.
There has been a real change in the nature of the construction industry, to which the CITB has not been allowed to adapt. The Government have been completely unaware of the need to do something dramatic to change the nature of training in the industry. There has been a downward spiral of training due to the growth of small firms who are out of scope, and labour-only subcontractors.
Another reason why the levy is not reaching the parts that it needs to reach is that the crisis in the construction industry has been aggravated by the Government's attitude towards local authorities and direct labour organisations. The Conservative party does not like local government or DLOs. But the DLOs do a wonderful job and they do a particularly good job in training.
Let me give one figure. In Greater London, the DLOs account for 14 per cent. of the construction work, but for 35 per cent. of training. The Government's persistent war on local authorities and direct labour organisations means that their ability to operate as such and their capacity to train have been severely affected. That is another reason for the training crisis in construction.
Moreover, the crisis that the construction industry faces because of the catastrophic shortage of skills will soon be accelerated. Just before Christmas, the Secretary of State announced yet another review of the skill centre network, which has been under attack from the Government for the past eight years. The Government have closed a third of the skill centres and have very little sympathy or patience with what is left of the network. They refuse to understand that the skill centre network represents the major opportunity for adult training in many of the traditional skills, as well as in the new technology skills.
Let us consider the impact of the skill centres on the levy and the inability of the levy to cope. The fact of the matter is that the skill centre network provides a large percentage of the skilled workers entering the construction industry. Only last year, the Under-Secretary's predecessor said at the Dispatch Box that a crisis package of 4,000 new trainees must enter the construction industry. He had had talks with the CITB. Of the 4,000, 2,000 were to be provided by the CITB in new YTS places. That came about, and more power to the CITB's elbow for delivering those 2,000. One thousand were to come from other providers—mainly private providers	of youth training in the construction industry.
It is interesting to note that only 250 of the promised 1,000 came on stream. The remaining 1,000 places, which were to be financed partly by the levy, were to come from the skill centres. The Minister will know that the skill centres delivered the extra places. In the financial year 1986–87, skill centres trained 16,400 people in the essential construction skills of bricklaying, carpentry and painting and decorating — 7,400 unemployed people on MSC-sponsored schemes and 9,000 adults already in employment. Such training and retraining are vital in an industry that is undergoing much change.
What can the CITB do, and how can the levy system be used, to meet the crisis that we are facing in the construction industry, which is as real as for any other industry? It is scandalous in those sectors that no longer have statutory training bodies. The recent Anderson report, which the Minister should know well, points out that, whereas there is a handful of good non-statutory training bodies, most of them have been dismal failures. Large sections of British industry now fail to train to an adequate standard to keep us in competition with our French, German and other industrial competitors.
There is a collapse of training throughout British industry, and the construction industry is not immune to the problem. Skilled workers are not available now and soon with large schemes such as Canary wharf, the Channel tunnel, Sizewell B, the expansion of Stansted airport and the extension of the M25, the absence of the skilled people needed will be catastrophic. We are already feeling the absence of those skills, but they will be felt much more severely by this time next year.
A recent estimate shows that the Canary wharf scheme alone will require 15 per cent. of the manpower of our construction industry. The impact of that one scheme alone will be incredible. A recent survey of the Federation of Master Builders showed that 45 per cent. of its members were having difficulty finding qualified workers. Even with all the schemes that I have mentioned coming on stream, there is a crisis. Therefore, I am surprised that the Minister has been relatively complacent about what has been going


on. The order comes through; he thinks that it is a good thing; he has laid on hands this evening, but he has not said one word about the crisis that we face.
In my final comments, I should like to suggest some answers to the crisis. What can the Government, the CITB and the levy system do to meet the situation? The Government's panic this time last year—they did panic — was too little, too late: 4,000 new trainees were not nearly enough even at that stage. Firm action on labour-only supply must be taken now; the legitimised lump, as it has become, will succeed in undermining the training system in the construction industry.
Although the answers are not simple, some action must be taken on one-person business exemptions and on the limit of £15,000 in turnover, because, as the Minister said, that is 51 per cent. of the industry. There must be a system whereby every employee in the construction industry is involved in training and comes within the purview of the industrial training board. The Government could tackle the way in which that is done. With the analysis and the new review of finance and training with which the Manpower Services Commission has just come forward, I believe that here is the opportunity to look again at strengthening the power of the CITB so that all employees in the construction industry will be covered.
Moreover, because of the picture that I have painted this evening, I believe that there is a need for a dramatic emergency programme to target particular regions and sectors to ensure that the shortages that I have described do not become a disaster for the great construction projects that are in hand. In docklands, for example, we must be able to find ways of training the people in Newham and Tower Hamlets, where there is 20 per cent. male unemployment. Those people must be trained to help in the task facing the construction industry. In our country, which still has dreadful levels of unemployment in its city centres—even in London—it must be possible to find a way of training those unemployed people to take part in such efforts.
In conclusion, I am afraid that the bullet that the Government are too ideologically blinkered to bite is that of contract compliance. If they really want to do something about the construction industry and training, they must say to a firm that wants to tender for work on large public or private contracts, "You will not get a contract unless you can show that you are training, and that every person on a site is eligible for training and has training and retraining as part of their individual contracts."
It is absurd that, when we still have massive unemployment, we have such dreadful skill shortages which will, as I have said, endanger the growth of our economy and the stimulation that many of those great projects offer. I do not want to discuss only Canary wharf, the Channel tunnel and the other great projects, but to return to the simple fact that many people in this country live in squalor — be it in public or private housing —largely due to the absence of skilled workers to renovate and refurbish their houses.
Of course we shall not oppose the motion tonight, but we believe that the Government must take in hand the crisis of training that lies beneath the issues that we have discussed.

Mr. Nicholls: In all fairness, I should reply briefly to the speech that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has just made. It is a great tribute to his eloquence that, in what might have been a narrow debate, he has been able to make a wide-ranging speech. I do not criticise him for that.
The hon. Gentleman admires the work done by the CITB, and I associate myself with his admiration. It will come as no news to the CITB that the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, but it will be pleased to hear him say so again. He said that there was a chronic skills shortage throughout the industry, and lays the responsibility for that at the Government's door. That cannot be right, because the main responsibility for training must lie in the hands of the employers. Going back to the 1970s, one can see that the economic state of the country was so parlous that it was not much good telling employers then that they should be thinking of the future and of investing in training. A great many of them, under the Governments of that time, were not so much investing in training as trying to keep their heads above water.
Mercifully, we now live in a different climate, but the damage done over the years cannot be repaired in a few moments. The skill shortages are more complicated than the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. It is inevitable that there will be skill shortages in parts of the country in an industry as diverse as the building industry. Having said that, however, there are grounds for optimism. A great deal of taxpayers' money is provided. Well over £1 billion is spent on YTS training, and well over £1.5 billion is spent on training in general. The CITB is responsible for the biggest YTS training agency. It has 22,000 trainees under training out of a total complement in the industry at large of about 62,000 trainees. That augurs well for the future.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the decline of traditional apprenticeships. I understand his point, but times move on. There are ways into the building industry now other than through the traditional craft apprenticeships. The hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that, too. One can, for instance, discuss the role increasingly played by those who enter the industry as site surveyors, planners, buyers, estimators, site engineers, civil engineers, production managers, quantity surveyors, structural engineers, and so on. All those people play an increasing part in a changing building and construction industry, but do not enter it via traditional apprenticeships. Even a substantial number of those now in YTS training use that training as a foundation course before going on to an apprenticeship.
The Government are putting a vast amount of taxpayers' money into providing the infrastructure necessary for training, and are doing the initial pump priming in YTS and other schemes. However, in the end training is a matter for the employers.
Not for the first or the last time, the hon. Gentleman and I differ over the future of the boards. Honest men will sometimes honestly differ. Speaking rhetorically, so that I do not provoke him, perhaps I can say that if his attitude to the creation or existence of the CITB were right, he would have to say that all the 16 boards that were quietly laid to rest by the Government and replaced by non-statutory training organisations had been doing a super job—but they clearly had not. At the time, the industry accepted that the CITB was doing a decent job, and the


hon. Gentleman has already paid tribute to that. The CITB was perceived to be doing a good job, which is why it survived. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps stretching the imagination and the facts a little too extremely if he believes that in the good old days of the many training boards training was at a higher level. It would be nice if that were the truth; in fact, it is not.
I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will not take it amiss if I take him up on a point of detail regarding his remedy for bringing more people into scope. I can understand him saying that, because the exemption level is at £15,000 and has been so since 1975, there must be fewer and fewer people within scope. However, because there has been a general increase in the economy, with small businesses coming into operation, it is perhaps surprising — certainly it is true — that more and more people have come into scope even though the £15,000 exemption has not been raised since 1975.
The hon. Gentleman is of the opinion that the Government do not like the skill centres and have it in for them. I believe that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest regarding our motives. Two reports have cast considerable doubt on whether the skill centres are providing the right sort of training at the right sort of price.
The National Audit Office report said that it considered that the MSC's agreement to purchase fixed amounts of training from the Skills Training Agency had resulted in the MSC incurring
considerably higher total costs for providing training courses".
The Public Accounts Committee noted the action that the MSC was taking to improve value for money in the operation of schemes, but expected it to
continue its efforts to minimise the diseconomy arising from its agreement with the Skills Training Agency to purchase a fixed amount of training at Skillcentres".
Faced with such evidence, it would have been the height of folly for the Government not to respond.
Without in any sense trying to prejudge the eventual outcome, it was clearly right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that outside consultants would consider the matter and decide whether the STA is doing the job that the hon. Gentleman and I would want it to do.

Mr. Sheerman: As a former member of the PAC, I can understand what was said by the Committee and the National Audit Office. However, I do not believe that those quotes should be taken out of context. The skill training network has changed a great deal, but the PAC did not look at the broader fact that the skill centres represent the one agency in the country with proven success in imparting skills to adults. No other organisation or institution has been as successful as those centres.

Mr. Nicholls: If I were to concede those remarks in their entirety, I would be pre-empting the result of the inquiry that we have instituted. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I would be at one in wanting to see the right type of training delivered to those in need of it at the right price. If there is prima facie evidence to suggest that the MSC is paying too much taxpayers' money — our money and that of our constituents — to the STA, that evidence

should be studied. That is as far as it goes. The matter is being considered and I would not like to make any judgments at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman has his doubts about whether the levy goes wide enough. The two main limbs of the order cover firms with a payroll of £15,000, which represents a person and a half. I had better not say a man and a half, as I might be leapt at from other areas of the House—[Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Lady in question is not here.
The levy of f £15,000 covers a small number of employees and although it may, on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's calculation, exclude 51 per cent. of those who would otherwise be in scope, it affects only 2 per cent. of the work force. On the basis that the devil can quote figures for his own purposes, I can find such a figure.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to identify labour-only sub-contracting automatically with the black economy. Although he came up with a nice term of alliteration, "the legitimised lump", I did not take that personally, as I assumed that he was referring to the operation of labour-only sub-contractors.
It is entirely true that, in the very nature of things, labour-only sub-contractors do not usually play as direct and large a part in training as they otherwise might. That is inevitable from the very nature of them. Having said that they are the legitimate part of the industry, they are not the illegitimate part. A swingeing levy is imposed on them. The board has instituted one scheme, the levy grant system, to operate for training those who will be labour-only sub-contractors, and another pilot scheme is operating to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this causes a particular problem, but it is the legitimate end of the problem. The CITB feels that the labour-only subcontractors play their part, through the pilot projects they are operating and the levy imposed.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems that dogs the construction industry is that the differential in wages between the highly skilled and semi-skilled or unskilled is too low to allow for the kind of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We had better stick to the levy rather than discuss the pay structure in the industry.

Mr. Nicholls: I am tempted to respond to my hon. Friend, but I know from experience that I would not begin to get away with it. I ask my hon. Friend to come and see me later.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield finished where he started, by talking about the necessity to train. That must be entirely right. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being devoted to that end. Training for the construction industry is not a straightforward or routine matter. It is a peripatetic industry, which brings particular problems in its wake. Training must be the responsibility of the employers, and there is increasing evidence to show that employers are matching that responsibility. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that the billions of pounds are spent properly, and there is no doubt that they are fulfilling that role to the full.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,


That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) shall apply to the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales as if it were a statutory instrument; and that the said Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lightbown]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 95 (Scottish Standing Committees), the Housing (Scotland) Bill be considered by a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING (re-committed) BILL

Ordered,
That the Order for Committee be discharged and that the Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, be re-committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Cerebral Palsy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that whenever a child is born a parent's deepest wish is, "Pray God they be healthy." Alas, through no one's fault, some children do not enjoy full health, and some suffer from cerebral palsy. At present, hundreds of children with grave impairment of their motor co-ordination are destined to remain bedridden or in wheelchairs, unable to sit, stand, walk or achieve even a modest measure of independence.
I started to learn about cerebral palsy only by parents coming to see me to tell me about their hopes for their children's future. Several families in my constituency have children afflicted with cerebral palsy. One extremely courageous mother has three children who are so afflicted.
They came to see me not to whinge but with a message of hope that their children could one day walk and live more independent lives because they had either been to or were going to the Peto Institute in Budapest. Some five families from north Oxfordslaire have been to Budapest. They wanted to make sure that I understood the potential of conductive education and the outstanding achievements that are being made at the Peto Institute.
Many hon. Members have had a far closer involvement than I in trying to ensure the maximum opportunities for children suffering from cerebral palsy. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has always been tireless in his efforts on behalf of the disabled and has led an all-party parliamentary campaign to promote conductive education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (M r. Coombs), before entering the House, was a Birmingham city councillor and was largely responsible for helping to set up the Foundation for Conductive Education in Birmingham. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry visited the Peto Institute when he was Minister for Health. The Institute was similarly visited by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on behalf of the Foreign Office, and in a personal capacity by Lady Howe, the wife of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Many hon. Members have first-hand experience of helping to raise money for the Foundation for Conductive Education in Birmingham. They include the hon. Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. IN ellist) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). I simply seek to add my voice because I have been so greatly impressed by the courage of those constituents of mine who have children afflicted with cerebral palsy, and impressed by the evidence of my own eyes of what has clearly been achieved in Budapest.
When, for example, little Richard Shakespeare was first brought to see me by his parents, I never in my wildest dreams believed that this little boy, who could barely raise his own head unaided, could within a matter of months stand on his own two feet. But the truth is that Richard Shakespeare can now stand on his own two feet with confidence and move his arms naturally, thanks to the


training that he has received at the Peto. Institute. I know that there are many children like Richard who have improved beyond their parents' greatest hopes. Credit, in Richard's case, must go to Oxfordshire county council for being prepared to pay Richard's fees in Budapest and for helping with some of the travel costs.
As the House will know, conductive education has been developed in Hungary and is used there as the main basis for the early education of physically handicapped children. The emphasis of the movement is on establishing sufficient control for the individual child to take part in everyday life without the use of artificial aids. Children are allocated to one particular teacher known as the conductor, who takes them through the whole process of education as they grow older.
Conductive education is hard work; it is intensive, with children being taught from the time they wake up in the morning until they go to bed at night. This approach clearly has great success. I understand that the Hungarians estimate that it could help 70 per cent. of all children afflicted with cerebral palsy, across the whole spectrum of the disability range, to achieve self auto-function; in other words, to reach a position where they can live as independently as children of a similar age and can walk with confidence and be able to go to school.
This is a fantastic achievement. There is, of course, the evidence of the experience of those who have been to Budapest and the evidence of our own eyes as to what has been achieved out there. It is clearly good news that the Peto Institute is collaborating with the Foundation for Conductive Education which, as the House knows, is a national charity formed to establish the Hungarian system of conductive education in Britain and collaborating to set up an integrated programme to train conductors and to establish working conductive groups of children. The Peto Institute has undertaken to train British conductors to the same high standard as its own and will co-operate to ensure that conductive education is established and working properly here in Britain. We all have good cause to be grateful to the Peto Institute.
I also have little doubt that what has been achieved by mutual understanding has come about in large part because of the efforts and energy of the staff of the British embassy in Budapest and the Hungarian embassy in London. I understand that a British-Hungarian cultural exchange agreement is to be negotiated in the next few months. It is hoped that it will include a provision that will enable this invaluable co-operation to continue and to expand.
It is also extremely encouraging that the Government have provided a grant of £326,000 to enable Birmingham university to carry out a research evaluation of the Foundation for Conductive Education project over a five-year period. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science, with the help that they have received from Ministers within the Foreign Office, are to be congratulated on the initiatives that they have taken so far. Clearly it is right and proper to ensure that conductive education is evaluated in this country before being more widely available. However, as yet there is no conductive education in this country to evaluate.
This project should not be a matter of five years of research, with us then standing back and seeing what has been learned and deciding what to do next. Such an approach could result in the loss of valuable time and momentum and, most important, could affect Britain's relationship with the Peto Institute, and I believe we are the only country with such a close involvement.
The international pressures on the Peto Institute are such that, if we are to maintain the closeness of our involvement, we must have clear commitment. Unless a strong reason appears to question the validity of conductive education, there should be a clear commitment on the part of the Government, in co-operation with others—individuals, charities and local authorities—to secure the future of the Birmingham centre within the next five years and to expand conductive education throughout Britain. That can be done by people from this country being trained in Budapest and, in turn, returning to train to the same high standard further conductors here. Then, by that cascade effect, conductive education could be available throughout the country.
Britain is at present the only country that is involved so closely with the Peto Institute. We thus have a wonderful opportunity to ensure that good conductive education may become established here. It would be a tragedy if we lost that opportunity and the momentum that has been established with the Peto Institute.
It is difficult for a fit person to imagine how frustrating it must be for a child to be confined to a wheelchair and to have difficulty moving about. While conductive education cannot help all children afflicted by cerebral palsy, it is clear that it can help many. It is difficult to calculate the costs of the special educational requirements of children who are confined to wheelchairs or who have severe difficulty in moving about. Those costs must, however, be far greater in the long term than any short-term costs involved in those children being given the benefit of conductive education here in Britain.
The Government have demonstrated their willingness to support conductive education. Let us make clear our determination to make conductive education available throughout Britain as soon as possible so that children like Richard Shakespeare may also get up and stand and walk on their own two feet. I ask for nothing more and nothing less than a commitment to make the introduction here of conductive education a firm policy objective.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on his success in the ballot and on raising the question of the valuable treatment known as conductive education which is being undertaken at the Peto Institute in Budapest.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have received a number of favourable reports about the Peto Institute from Members in all parts of the House. He referred to the visit made to the institute by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in November 1984 when he was Minister for Health. I am also aware of the favourable comments made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he visited the institute in the autumn of last year with Lady Howe, the wife of the Foreign Secretary. Other Members have also visited the Peto Institute or taken an interest in the development of


conductive education in this country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred in his speech to several of them.
We are aware that about 70 families with children now attend the Peto Institute and are currently living in Budapest. Of those, we think that about 40 are British, the rest coming from other countries. The total school roll is about 750 children and 250 adults. It is sometimes forgotten that much of the work of the institute is with adults who have motor impairment, perhaps as the result of an accident, and I am also interested in aspects of that work.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the tremendous efforts of Her Majesty's ambassador in Budapest, and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Appleyard, in providing help and comfort to the United Kingdom families there. I understand in particular that Mrs. Appleyard has regular weekly lunches to enable the families to meet together, and I wish to put on record our appreciation to her for her efforts.
It has to be recognised that the extent to which it is possible to help United Kingdom nationals who voluntarily leave this country to seek treatment abroad is constrained by the statutes laid down by this House. Perhaps it will do no harm, and some good, if I remind families that, except in the most restricted and extreme circumstances, Ministers in this Department have no power to pay for treatment of this kind in most other countries. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment have no powers to pay for accommodation, nor do their own local authorities. My colleagues in the Department of Education and Science are similarly constrained.
According to a letter that was sent recently to the Oxfordshire local education authority by Mr. Sawtell from the Department of Education and Science, there may even be some difficulty if the local education authorities pay, since the definition of "school" under the current legislation seems to apply only to schools in this country. However, some local education authorities make such payments. I recognise that the local education authorities take their own legal advice and that some, such as Oxfordshire, have decided to proceed.
We are therefore doing a kindness by warning families that, if they choose to go to Hungary or, indeed, anywhere else, we have no power to assist them; nor do the Hungarian authorities have any obligation to remit fees, to find or pay for accommodation or transport, or anything else. Before families commit themselves to spending a year or more in another country with a very different culture and language, however kind people are to them while they are there, we hope that they will give careful thought to these points.
Some United Kingdom social security benefits may continue, if the beneficiary goes abroad specifically for medical treatment—for example, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and invalidity benefit. There should be no problem concerning child benefit in respect of any child attending the institute, provided that there is a responsible adult in the United Kingdom to whom the benefit can be paid. However, child benefit in respect of other children accompanying a disabled child to Budapest can only be paid for up to eight weeks.
Some parents have reported difficulty over renewing benefits while abroad, since more than one office must be contacted. To help to simplify matters, we have introduced

some common rules and we shall do what we can to help them, but again we are somewhat constrained by the different statutes that cover the various benefits concerned.
I am very concerned about the appalling pressure on families in these circumstances and on the family members, including children, who have to stay behind. There have been divorces. The price that some people have to pay has been very high indeed. Nevertheless, I should like to put on record our thanks to the Peto Institute for the kindness that it has shown to the families and children concerned, and also our appreciation to the Hungarian authorities. We shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind as we renegotiate regularly the various agreements that we have with the authorities in Hungary.
The technique of conductive education as practised at the Peto Institute is the main system of early education for physically handicapped children in Hungary, where it is regarded as a necessity that a child should be able to walk to school if he or she wishes to receive normal education with able-bodied children. No such rule exists here, and disabled children are readily integrated into normal schools, following the Warnock reforms earlier in the 1980s. The technique is quite intensive and can require a child to be resident in the institute.
The work goes on throughout working hours, so it is hardly surprising if some children show considerable improvement. The institute can be highly selective, and it is probably right that it should be selective. We do not . expect any one technique to be universally successful for all conditions. We have no reason to doubt its success rate, as claimed, of about 70 per cent. of children being able o attend normal schools after treatment, but there are quite a number of questions that we should wish to have answered relating to the techniques that are used at the Peto Institute.
For example, to what extent does the technique concentrate on certain aspects of disability — for example, motor development, or incontinence — at the expense of something that we would regard as important, which is all-round social development? What does the institute do about the more severely or multiple handicapped children? If there is no chance of a child ever walking again, or if the treatment fails, are children then regarded as ineducable — as, for example, Down's syndrome children were regarded in this country until quite recently?
What is the procedure? Is there an alternative procedure if the child has difficulty in communicating or understanding the commands of the conductor? What long-term follow-up arrangements are provided in the community? What happens if a child, for example, has a condition that is subject to a relapse, or if he has a degenerative problem? In other words, we need to know whether the effect is lasting.
We also need to know why the institute excludes epileptics. We need to know to what extent the high degree of concentrated service input at the institute contributes to the success of the type of education that is provided. We need to know what is the role of the parents. Other schemes—for example, the Philadelphia system — rely very heavily on parents and helpers. It may be that we should need to take on board messages and lessons from more than one scheme.
Given those two main concerns, there are many unanswered questions. We are concerned about families


who feel obliged to go abroad. I feel very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said about doing the work here. Recently, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), a junior Minister at the Department of Education and Science, I met some of the families concerned in the campaign to bring conductive education to this country. On behalf of both Departments I say that we do not wish to stand in the way of any techniques that would assist disabled people, including children with cerebral palsy, spina bifida or any condition that would benefit from improved techniques.
When the BBC television programmes were broadcast, therapists in this country, for example, in Preston, protested that the techniques were available here and were being used to benefit people. In that respect, therefore, it seemed wise to take the following approach. The Government have involved themselves in two studies. My hon. Friend has already referred to the Birmingham project. He is probably aware that I am acquainted with a large number of the people who are interested in that project. I am delighted to join him in the tribute he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who was my fellow councillor in Birmingham for a number of years, for his efforts to get something set up.
The research project arose out of the Anglo-Hungarian cultural agreement, which was signed in Budapest on 21 March 1986 under the auspices of the British Council, involving Birmingham university and the Teachers' Training and Education Institute for the Motor Disabled in Hungary. Because of the need to approach the development of conductive education in a systematic way,

it was decided that the Government could best assist the four-year research project being undertaken by Birmingham university to train conductors in the Peto method of conductive education by funding the evaluation of the project.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Government therefore provided some £326,000 over five years for the evaluation. I understand that the first batch of 10 teachers selected for the research project either have gone or will shortly be going to Budapest for part of their training. We hope that some valuable information comes out of the study. I share my hon. Friend's view that if we get good news more quickly than five years, we should be able to act on it.
Apart from this, the DHSS and the DES have jointly funded a survey by the Spastics Society into the extent to which aspects of conductive education are being practised in the United Kingdom. Findings are expected to be available later this year.
I hope that the approach I have outlined shows what progress has been made in the past 12 months or so in the United Kingdom. We look forward with interest, enthusiasm and great sympathy to the results of the studies and to hearing more from families who have benefited from the work at Peto and perhaps from those who have not had the opportunity to benefit, despite having had their children assessed there. It is also helpful to know about the failures because that helps us better to understand the successes.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and giving us a chance to put on record our policy as it stands at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.